| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/24/2015 09:54:41 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by MEJazz:
Originally posted by Paul:
Weight and size wise I don't agree at all. The A7 is much, much lighter than my 5d3. As for lenses, M mount lenses are tiny and manual focus with peaking is very straightforward. |
Of course the body size/weight difference is there. Just saying with FF telezooms that gets marginalized: //j.mp/18cKtST |
I considered an A7, but the lenses I would want for travel were larger and heavier than what I currently use with my D800 (Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 and 70-200 f/4). The Fuji X-T1 has a similar problem. Unless I want to switch to a bag full of primes, and/or switch my shooting style to not "need" that 70-200, I wont save any real size or weight until I get down to m43 or smaller.
I'm climbing Machu Picchu next year. The D800 is not going on that one. But neither is an A7. |
|
|
|
02/24/2015 03:43:04 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by MeMex2:
I am upgrading my Nikon d90 and I cannot decide wether to stay with Nikon and get the new d7200 (which is due out next month) or to get the Sony mirror less7s or a.
The reason for staying with Nikon is familiarity. I finally know the camera, how to navigate the menu etc. The thought of starting over with a new system seems daunting.
Also, I have Nikon lenses and am used to telephoto lenses. Sony has yet to introduce a telephoto that has the range that I am used to. Also, the Sony is a full frame which I
have never used.
A more compact size is not a factor for me. I like the size and weight of my Nikon and I always have my phone in my pocket. My reason for changing to Sony would be for better image quality
and low light function.
The faculty at Visual Arts are encouraging us to go with mirror less as dslr's are 'old technology". I have been postponing a decision but my d90 needs to be replaced.
Does anyone have an opinion?
Thanks
Jane |
Since you're moving from a D90, you would be delighted with a new D3300.
So.......considering that you seem to keep a camera for a while, why not get a D7100?
NikonUSA has 'em on sale for $999.95.
Then you'll have the familiarity of the Nikon and not have to go for the lens expense.
It's also MUCH more compact & light than the full frame.
Unless you KNOW you want & need to go to full frame, don't.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2015 05:53:53 PM · #28 |
Hi Jeb
If the rumors are correct the 7200 will have an articulated screen, very much like the 750. I shoot with friends who have that feature and I really
think I would like it. The Nikon is supposed to be available before 3/13 so I thought it would be worth the extra cost. If it turns out not to have that screen
then I would consider the 7100.
thanks |
|
|
|
02/24/2015 07:52:15 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by MEJazz:
Originally posted by Paul:
Weight and size wise I don't agree at all. The A7 is much, much lighter than my 5d3. As for lenses, M mount lenses are tiny and manual focus with peaking is very straightforward. |
Of course the body size/weight difference is there. Just saying with FF telezooms that gets marginalized: //j.mp/18cKtST |
I considered an A7, but the lenses I would want for travel were larger and heavier than what I currently use with my D800 (Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 and 70-200 f/4). The Fuji X-T1 has a similar problem. Unless I want to switch to a bag full of primes, and/or switch my shooting style to not "need" that 70-200, I wont save any real size or weight until I get down to m43 or smaller.
I'm climbing Machu Picchu next year. The D800 is not going on that one. But neither is an A7. |
I stopped at Best Buy on the way home tonight and checked out the A6000 and a couple of A7's. They also had a surprising amount of Sony lens in stock (never seen that before!). The E-mount 70-200 looked WAY smaller than that of the full A-mount. To confirm I just grabbed the specs ...
A-mount 70-200/2.8
Dimensions (Approx.) : 3 1/2 x 7 3/4â (87 x 196.5mm)
Weight (Approx.) : 2 lbs 15 oz (1300g)
E-mount 70-200/4
Dimensions (Approx.) : 3-1/4" Ã 7" (80 x 175mm)
Weight (Approx.) : 29.7 oz (840g) |
|
|
|
02/24/2015 10:20:56 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by MEJazz:
Originally posted by Paul:
Weight and size wise I don't agree at all. The A7 is much, much lighter than my 5d3. As for lenses, M mount lenses are tiny and manual focus with peaking is very straightforward. |
Of course the body size/weight difference is there. Just saying with FF telezooms that gets marginalized: //j.mp/18cKtST |
I considered an A7, but the lenses I would want for travel were larger and heavier than what I currently use with my D800 (Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 and 70-200 f/4). The Fuji X-T1 has a similar problem. Unless I want to switch to a bag full of primes, and/or switch my shooting style to not "need" that 70-200, I wont save any real size or weight until I get down to m43 or smaller.
I'm climbing Machu Picchu next year. The D800 is not going on that one. But neither is an A7. |
I stopped at Best Buy on the way home tonight and checked out the A6000 and a couple of A7's. They also had a surprising amount of Sony lens in stock (never seen that before!). The E-mount 70-200 looked WAY smaller than that of the full A-mount. To confirm I just grabbed the specs ...
A-mount 70-200/2.8
Dimensions (Approx.) : 3 1/2 x 7 3/4â (87 x 196.5mm)
Weight (Approx.) : 2 lbs 15 oz (1300g)
E-mount 70-200/4
Dimensions (Approx.) : 3-1/4" Ã 7" (80 x 175mm)
Weight (Approx.) : 29.7 oz (840g) |
The nikon 70-200 f/4 that I already have is almost exactly the same size and weight as the Sony E mount 70-200 f/4, and the variable aperture Nikon 18-35 that I carry when I travel is actually several ounces lighter than the Sony 16-35. I have back problems, and if I want to continue traveling, I need to go lighter. Much lighter.
I'm in the middle of shopping and trying alternatives. The biggest issue I have is I like to shoot wildlife, which isnt really compatible with going light. And I'm trying to find something that matches the performance of that 70-200. Which is something that doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
02/24/2015 10:31:46 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by MEJazz:
Originally posted by Paul:
Weight and size wise I don't agree at all. The A7 is much, much lighter than my 5d3. As for lenses, M mount lenses are tiny and manual focus with peaking is very straightforward. |
Of course the body size/weight difference is there. Just saying with FF telezooms that gets marginalized: //j.mp/18cKtST |
I considered an A7, but the lenses I would want for travel were larger and heavier than what I currently use with my D800 (Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 and 70-200 f/4). The Fuji X-T1 has a similar problem. Unless I want to switch to a bag full of primes, and/or switch my shooting style to not "need" that 70-200, I wont save any real size or weight until I get down to m43 or smaller.
I'm climbing Machu Picchu next year. The D800 is not going on that one. But neither is an A7. |
I stopped at Best Buy on the way home tonight and checked out the A6000 and a couple of A7's. They also had a surprising amount of Sony lens in stock (never seen that before!). The E-mount 70-200 looked WAY smaller than that of the full A-mount. To confirm I just grabbed the specs ...
A-mount 70-200/2.8
Dimensions (Approx.) : 3 1/2 x 7 3/4â (87 x 196.5mm)
Weight (Approx.) : 2 lbs 15 oz (1300g)
E-mount 70-200/4
Dimensions (Approx.) : 3-1/4" Ã 7" (80 x 175mm)
Weight (Approx.) : 29.7 oz (840g) |
The nikon 70-200 f/4 that I already have is almost exactly the same size and weight as the Sony E mount 70-200 f/4, and the variable aperture Nikon 18-35 that I carry when I travel is actually several ounces lighter than the Sony 16-35. I have back problems, and if I want to continue traveling, I need to go lighter. Much lighter.
I'm in the middle of shopping and trying alternatives. The biggest issue I have is I like to shoot wildlife, which isnt really compatible with going light. And I'm trying to find something that matches the performance of that 70-200. Which is something that doesn't exist. |
I hear what you're saying for sure. Traveling light is challenging. That's why even if I do pick up a smaller mirrorless body I can't see getting rid of my DSLR and 70-400mm lens. I don't use it that often, but when I want it I know it's there. |
|
|
|
02/24/2015 10:37:19 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I stopped at Best Buy on the way home tonight and checked out the A6000 and a couple of A7's. They also had a surprising amount of Sony lens in stock (never seen that before!). The E-mount 70-200 looked WAY smaller than that of the full A-mount. To confirm I just grabbed the specs ...
A-mount 70-200/2.8
Dimensions (Approx.) : 3 1/2 x 7 3/4â (87 x 196.5mm)
Weight (Approx.) : 2 lbs 15 oz (1300g)
E-mount 70-200/4
Dimensions (Approx.) : 3-1/4" Ã 7" (80 x 175mm)
Weight (Approx.) : 29.7 oz (840g) |
Do bear in mind that the A-mount lens you're comparing is f/2.8, and those lenses are a LOT heavier. By comparison, Canon's f/4L IS is 760 grams (1.68 lbs) and the f/2.8L IS is 1490 grams (3.28 lbs). So the Sony f/4 version, which we have, is actually HEAVIER than the Canon version. It IS more compact, however, and seems to have better stabilization.
The bottom line is, these a7 bodies ARE full frame, so they have essentially the same requirements as their FF dSLR brethren as far as optics go. The only difference is, the sensor is MUCH closer to the lens on the mirrorless build, so the shorter lens benefit significantly from less-complex optical formulae, which equals less glass in the lens. This is especially noticeable in prime lenses, because zoom lenses carry a lot of complex structural weight that doesn't change a lot in the mirrorless format.
One other aspect of this is that the Zeiss lenses for the Sony are of all-metal construction, they are built like small tanks. Extremely satisfying to hold, and behold :-) |
|
|
|
02/24/2015 10:41:32 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...
One other aspect of this is that the Zeiss lenses for the Sony are of all-metal construction, they are built like small tanks. Extremely satisfying to hold, and behold :-) |
Yes, they are lovely! ... but $$$$$! :-) |
|
|
|
02/25/2015 12:18:30 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...
One other aspect of this is that the Zeiss lenses for the Sony are of all-metal construction, they are built like small tanks. Extremely satisfying to hold, and behold :-) |
Yes, they are lovely! ... but $$$$$! :-) |
Comparable to L glass... But I guess that's pricy too.... |
|
|
|
02/25/2015 10:37:40 PM · #35 |
Found an article that you guys might find interesting ...
Originally posted by Paul:
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Paul:
2. It's compatible with pretty much any lens ever made. That's huge. There is a whole world of vintage lenses out there.
|
How is this accomplished? Is an adapter for each mount type needed? |
Yes, you get an adapter for each mount. These can range in price though, from the higher end ones like the metabones and very handy ones like the voigtlander close focus adapter ( which decreases the minimum focus distance- very handy for many older lenses) to very cheap adapters. I've got adapters for leica M and Leica LTM mounts and also for the Nikon F and they were all very cheap, less than £10, and seem to work fine. I do fancy the Voigtlander close up one though, if it ever becomes availible again. |
Clive, can you recommend a cheap Leica M one, I've ordered the Voigtlander Close Up but fear I might wait a while...
In relation to LTM, can I just attach my LTM to M to the M to E (or indeed my R to M to the M to E)?
Cheers
Paul |
|
|
|
|
02/26/2015 03:14:06 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Found an article that you guys might find interesting ...
|
Wow!
I looked at some of those lenses. I am not so sure that despite the reputation and mystique that I would ever spend that kind of money for a used manual prime lens.
Of course, I don't know much, but seriously? That whole schtick in and of itself makes me question this mirrorless thing. It seems a bit much to me.
Have fun.......I think I'll just continue to drag around my brick! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
02/26/2015 05:01:21 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Found an article that you guys might find interesting ...
|
Cheers for that. Some good info there. |
|
|
|
02/26/2015 05:14:37 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Found an article that you guys might find interesting ...
|
Wow!
I looked at some of those lenses. I am not so sure that despite the reputation and mystique that I would ever spend that kind of money for a used manual prime lens.
Of course, I don't know much, but seriously? That whole schtick in and of itself makes me question this mirrorless thing. It seems a bit much to me.
Have fun.......I think I'll just continue to drag around my brick! LOL!!! |
*shrugs* Different strokes etc. People have different approaches and likes with photography. For example; I think I've only owned one zoom lens in the 20 years or so that I've been doing photography - the very well regarded Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED. I didn't keep it long as I found it to be one of the most boring lenses I've ever used. Actually, that's not true- I did have the Tokina 12-24 for a bit. Anyway, I'm not a fan of zoom and dislike using them. I'm also not a fan of auto focus, particularly on mirrorless cameras, and I much prefer manual even for paid work at weddings. Plus, the often used comparison between lenses and wine is quite true. Other people might not detect the difference in the look and character of a lens but for some people it's definitely something that counts alongside the build and handling. Using adapters on mirror less opens up a fantastic range of lenses made over the last 80 years or so. |
|
|
|
02/26/2015 05:59:00 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Wow!
I looked at some of those lenses. I am not so sure that despite the reputation and mystique that I would ever spend that kind of money for a used manual prime lens.
Of course, I don't know much, but seriously? That whole schtick in and of itself makes me question this mirrorless thing. It seems a bit much to me.
Have fun.......I think I'll just continue to drag around my brick! LOL!!! |
This from a dude that drives around in an MG-B? Jejeje... |
|
|
|
02/26/2015 06:10:40 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Wow!
I looked at some of those lenses. I am not so sure that despite the reputation and mystique that I would ever spend that kind of money for a used manual prime lens.
Of course, I don't know much, but seriously? That whole schtick in and of itself makes me question this mirrorless thing. It seems a bit much to me.
Have fun.......I think I'll just continue to drag around my brick! LOL!!! |
This from a dude that drives around in an MG-B? Jejeje... |
Ha! Yea, I was thinking of a car comparison also. I have next to no interest in cars. Don't like driving them, don't like being driven around in them. Cheap and functional is pretty much what I'm after but I can understand what others see in them I guess. |
|
|
|
02/26/2015 10:47:58 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Wow!
I looked at some of those lenses. I am not so sure that despite the reputation and mystique that I would ever spend that kind of money for a used manual prime lens.
Of course, I don't know much, but seriously? That whole schtick in and of itself makes me question this mirrorless thing. It seems a bit much to me.
Have fun.......I think I'll just continue to drag around my brick! LOL!!! |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This from a dude that drives around in an MG-B? Jejeje... |
Yes, but it's a restored and updated/improved MGB.
And it's a toy, not my daily driver....That'd be the Jetta.
Originally posted by rooum:
Ha! Yea, I was thinking of a car comparison also. I have next to no interest in cars. Don't like driving them, don't like being driven around in them. Cheap and functional is pretty much what I'm after but I can understand what others see in them I guess. |
Hey, don't misunderstand me.....I won't even buy expensive primes for my DSLR. I'm fat & lazy and perfectly okay with that.
I was just a little taken aback as I had seen the mirrorless setups as a less expensive alternative. It really looks like to a certain extent that some of these mirrorless setups rival pro DSLRs in pricing with these crazy German lenses.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2015 11:07:16 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I was just a little taken aback as I had seen the mirrorless setups as a less expensive alternative. It really looks like to a certain extent that some of these mirrorless setups rival pro DSLRs in pricing with these crazy German lenses. |
Oh, it's definitely not a less expensive alternative to pro DSLR's. I'm hoping to get a Sony A7s soon which is about $2500 or so which I guess is comparable to a Nikon D800 or something. The native lenses like the sony/zeiss 55mm tend to be priced a bit more than slr equivalants as well.
Saying that though, the lens choice is so big it does contain the extremely cheap as well as the extremely expensive. This photo by Paul was taken with an old Russian Jupiter lens which I also have which cost me about $50.  .
Part of the joy of the system, for me, is discovering all these old classic, half forgotten lenses.
|
|
|
|
02/26/2015 11:31:18 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by rooum:
This photo by Paul was taken with an old Russian Jupiter lens which I also have which cost me about $50. . |
Yeah, but Paul would take beautiful shots with a Holga! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
02/26/2015 11:39:37 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by rooum:
This photo by Paul was taken with an old Russian Jupiter lens which I also have which cost me about $50. . |
Yeah, but Paul would take beautiful shots with a Holga! LOL!!! |
That's very true! |
|
|
|
02/26/2015 12:09:50 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Found an article that you guys might find interesting ...
|
Wow!
I looked at some of those lenses. I am not so sure that despite the reputation and mystique that I would ever spend that kind of money for a used manual prime lens.
Of course, I don't know much, but seriously? That whole schtick in and of itself makes me question this mirrorless thing. It seems a bit much to me.
Have fun.......I think I'll just continue to drag around my brick! LOL!!! |
*shrugs* Different strokes etc. People have different approaches and likes with photography. For example; I think I've only owned one zoom lens in the 20 years or so that I've been doing photography - the very well regarded Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED. I didn't keep it long as I found it to be one of the most boring lenses I've ever used. Actually, that's not true- I did have the Tokina 12-24 for a bit. |
Um, you live in Snowdonia and gave up two wonderful landscape, albeit "boring" lenses???!!! |
|
|
|
02/26/2015 12:31:40 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Um, you live in Snowdonia and gave up two wonderful landscape, albeit "boring" lenses???!!! |
Nah, i gave up the Tokina 12-24 because i went from the crop Nikon D300 to the full frame Nikon D700 and the Tokina is a crop lens.. Then i started earning a living as a wedding photographer and just didn't take to the 24-70mm - i ended up with a Nikon 24mm 1.4G which is a superb lens in every way with lots of character. Then, after doing a couple of years of weddings i realised that the way i was shooting - one D700 with the 24mm and another D700 with an 85mm 1.4 - was starting to get to my back on 12-15 hour weddings. So i switched to mirror less because of weight. My kit choices over the last few years have been dictated by work really.
Whilst i do a lot of location type photography i'm not a huge fan of traditional landscape type stuff but when i do i tend to prefer using my Sigma Dp cameras and maybe stitch like thisâ¦.  or use my voigtlander 20mm⦠ .
That sort of thing is not my favourite sort of photography though.
Message edited by author 2015-02-26 12:32:01. |
|
|
|
02/26/2015 03:49:35 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Um, you live in Snowdonia and gave up two wonderful landscape, albeit "boring" lenses???!!! |
Nah, i gave up the Tokina 12-24 because i went from the crop Nikon D300 to the full frame Nikon D700 and the Tokina is a crop lens.. Then i started earning a living as a wedding photographer and just didn't take to the 24-70mm - i ended up with a Nikon 24mm 1.4G which is a superb lens in every way with lots of character. Then, after doing a couple of years of weddings i realised that the way i was shooting - one D700 with the 24mm and another D700 with an 85mm 1.4 - was starting to get to my back on 12-15 hour weddings. So i switched to mirror less because of weight. My kit choices over the last few years have been dictated by work really.
Whilst i do a lot of location type photography i'm not a huge fan of traditional landscape type stuff but when i do i tend to prefer using my Sigma Dp cameras and maybe stitch like thisâ¦. or use my voigtlander 20mm⦠.
That sort of thing is not my favourite sort of photography though. |
Beautiful location and beautiful shots. I really like the first one. |
|
|
|
02/26/2015 04:11:33 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Beautiful location and beautiful shots. I really like the first one. |
Thanks. It is a beautiful location indeed. That first one is of the valley where I live...my village is hidden behind the third lump from the right. I should probably get out and try more of those panoramics. The second shot is only five minutes walk from my house as well. It's a great place to live for landscape photography and I love walking round here but photographically my brain is wired to prefer taking pictures of empty car parks and skips and such. |
|
|
|
02/26/2015 04:30:45 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by rooum:
This photo by Paul was taken with an old Russian Jupiter lens which I also have which cost me about $50. . |
Yeah, but Paul would take beautiful shots with a Holga! LOL!!! |
That's very true! |
You're very kind! Although I think I was ripped off - I paid £67 for my version! |
|
|
|
02/26/2015 04:44:14 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Paul:
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by rooum:
This photo by Paul was taken with an old Russian Jupiter lens which I also have which cost me about $50. . |
Yeah, but Paul would take beautiful shots with a Holga! LOL!!! |
That's very true! |
You're very kind! Although I think I was ripped off - I paid £67 for my version! |
Nah, I was just very lucky with finding it in a charity/junk shop and not a photography one. £67 is still pretty cheap though! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 04:46:29 PM EDT.
