mirrorless v mirror

[TrishBJ]

Thanks George, I'll be sure to check on that. Worth thinking about.
Trish

[TrishBJ]

Hi John,
I only have two lenses. One is a DX (16-85mm), but the other is fine for FF. I believe I can use the DX lens with a FF camera, though won't get the full benefit of FF as a result. My intention is to buy at least one new lens. Recommendations on lenses in that focal range are also welcome.

Trish

[Shadowman]

Hi John,
I only have two lenses. One is a DX (16-85mm), but the other is fine for FF. I believe I can use the DX lens with a FF camera, though won't get the full benefit of FF as a result. My intention is to buy at least one new lens. Recommendations on lenses in that focal range are also welcome.

Trish

For animal and birds I would suggest the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 for daylight shooting of modest sized animals, this lens could also be used for portraits in daylight; indoors you might need something faster. Others may have different opinions.

[TrishBJ]

Many thanks to all of those kind souls who have replied so far and shared their views, extensive knowledge and links to reviews. It has given me much to think about, and worthwhile information to work with. The discussion so far has been very enjoyable. I have a lot to learn!

To answer some questions that have arisen along the way.......why do I want to go to FF? As a result of retirement, and in anticipation of being paid out residual long-service leave very soon, I have the opportunity to treat myself to some much longed for equipment. My goal is to move onward and upward with each new camera, and I love crispy, crunchy detail in images, something I hope FF will help with. As a good chunk of photos are taken while out and about on foot include birds and animals, quick and accurate AF seems important. Perhaps the D810 based on comments so far would be the wiser choice?

Thanks again and please keep the comments coming!
Trish

[NorthernFocus]

...I only have two lenses. One is a DX (16-85mm), but the other is fine for FF. I believe I can use the DX lens with a FF camera, though won't get the full benefit of FF as a result. My intention is to buy at least one new lens. Recommendations on lenses in that focal range are also welcome.

If you do decide on a D810, it has a DX mode as well as a 1.2x crop mode. Shooting FF produces 36MP, 1.2x = 25MP, and DX mode = 15MP. If you attach your DX lens the camera will automatically set itself to DX mode and at 15MP will essentially be just like you are shooting your D7000 but with better ISO performance, better AF, better dynamic range, sharper (due to no AA filter), and simply a much more user friendly camera. When shooting subjects that don't fill the frame you can select one of the crop modes and save card space due to the much smaller file size.

If you want a FF lens that is nearly the equivalent of shooting the 16-85 on your DX body, the 24-120mm f4 fits the bill. It is not a cheap lens but may be available as a kit with the camera to save a bit. A really versatile lens that is also good for wildlife is the Nikon AF-S 80-400mm which is a bit pricey. If you're into shooting the little birdies either the Tamron or Sigma 150-600 may be of interest. If you have the finances the 24-120 and one of the others pretty well covers the available range with the exception of ultra wide angle. One aspect of full frame to think about is that all of the lenses I have mentioned are fairly heavy. A D810 with 24-120 is a couple of kg. With one of the 150-600 lenses that nearly doubles.

Hope this is more help than confusion...

[TrishBJ]

Thanks Dan, that's great advice

[Manfred M]

Trish - I shoot the D800; the D810's older "brother".

I went through a similar situation about three years ago, when I was looking at upgrading to a full-frame camera. At the time I made the decision, the D800 had been announced, but not released, so while I played around with the D700 as a proxy, I had an idea of what I was getting into.

First of all, my rationale for going FF.

1. I have been a 35mm film shooter for a long, long time. I just feel more comfortable with the full-frame format;

2. Viewfinder - I have always found the APS-C viewfinder on my D90 too small for my liking; the full frame has a far larger viewfinder, which I like.

3. Additional ~ 1 stop shallower depth of field - I do a lot of work wide open, and I really appreciate that I get a softer background than I do with a crop-frame camera.

4. Larger sensor - this means less enlargement = higher image quality. I print much of my work in large format, so this is quite important to me. It also gives me a touch more "headroom" if I need to crop.

5. Better camera layout than amateur cameras; I can manipulate all the critical controls without taking my eye off the viewfinder. The larger size of the body lets me "landmark" so I know where the controls are just by touch. I do use the battery grip when I shoot in vertical / portrait orientation.

As for lenses; I generally shoot the high end pro glass; the f/2.8 14-24mm, the f/2.8 24-70mm and the f/2.8 70-200mm lenses. I also regularly use two other ultra sharp lenses; the f/2 105mm DC and the f/3.5 24mm PC-E. Most of my work is portraiture, landscape (traditional and urban), street photography, some event work and abstract / experimental work. I do shoot some wildlife when those opportunities arise and use either the Nikkor 80-400 VR (original version) or the Sigma 150-500mm lenses; I simply don't shoot enough to justify more expensive glass for wildlife work. I don't do macro or sports

I do a lot of shooting using a heavy duty tripod; frankly for maximum sharpness with a body like the D800 or D810 and pro glass, this is something I find is almost mandatory.

[Ambient]

After losing my equipment (a Mark II and a host of lenses) and drying my tears, I purchased a Sony Nex 7 and three lenses. ( a wide angle with macro, a long zoom and 50 mm). Maybe it was me. Maybe it was some hidden psychological qerk. I don't know but I simply couldn't get into the mirrorless. Oh, how I tried. Even though I like the inherent refractive effect that happens under low light conditions, I found finding the optimal setting for the scene difficult becasue the camera was so tempermental. While the focus was tact sharp (Zeiss glass), white balance, and iso seemed artificial and there was lots of noise with high ISO. Thecolors from the camera never matched the colors of the nature scene. That was really frustrating. And the dynamic range left soemthing to be desired. Sure, I got some good shots - mostly close ups with the macro and city lights. I thought the size and light weight of the camera body would make it easy for street photography. bHowever, obtaining settings never became intuitive as with my good ol Mark II. Eventually, I left the hassle factor behind and allowed Sony to collect dust on my kitchen counter.
That was my experience. I've seen some nice mirrorless shots from others but what grabs attention seems to be captures that are abstract and artsy. Furthermore I hear some experts speaking highly of mirrorless but I think it is sales hype. I know a professional who worked with Nex 7 for his senior shots. His talent for taking portraits always shown through but to cover up an "over processed look" he added grung in post production.
Now, that Canon and Nikon are challenging mid formats on the pixel and quality fronts, and glass has gotten so expensive, I suspect we'll see vast improvements in the mirrorless market. There are a bunch of highly talented ametures with great photgraphic eyes and instinct for a good shot. So, there is a hugh market for something of quality more reasonably priced. However, in my opinion, mirrorless has some catching up to do.

[TrishBJ]

Hi Elizabeth, My heart goes out to you! It must be terrible to lose all of your equipment, then not be happy with what you bought to replace it. Like you, I prefer my photos (people, landscapes, animals and birds) to be true to life in terms of colour. It's beginning to sound, from a number of people's comments including yours, as if I should go with a full-frame camera right now, and keep an eye on developments regarding mirrorless cameras. Technology constantly moves forwards and there will be scope to add mirrorless to the kit later.

[ajohnw]

I would like not to go here to the "my brand is the only best brand" discussion, as to my subcutaneous reading of the answers is suggesting.
Trish: Unless you take the camera in your hands, you can not really decide. To change the system can get very expensive. And: no to your question, no camera will cover all your "needs"; you have to prioritze your wishes.

Erwin

There was no reference to brand at all so I find that comment pointless. Just the model. Perhaps you didn't notice I have 3 brands of camera.

John
-

[jcuknz]

1. The electronic viewfinder in my GX7 is quite dim when compared to the pentaprism used in my D90 and D800;

2. The contrast detect autofocus used in the mirrorless design is slower and so far as I can tell, slightly less accurate than the phase detect system used in DSLRs.

3. Smaller bodies found in mirrorless camera means that the designer has less physical space to place the controls on the camera body. .

1) Surely Manfred you can correct this problem by adjusting the brightness of the EVF I have the GH2 and have never found the EVF to be dark except when deliberately manually adjusting exposure to under expose [ or vice versa to over expose] a feature of some Panasonic cameras up to three stops either way to simulate how some people judge exposure through the viewfinder ... never done that myself, not clever enough

2) admittedly I was comparing an old apple [Canon D60] with a new orange [Pany G3] but I couldn't see any difference in practical terms between the systems ... I know in a testing lab situation there is a difference ... but when using my rig in a deliberately difficult situation for PD my CD snapped into focus just the same as in bright sunlight and I had a very difficult task to stop it focusing ... I found it quite amusing and reassuring. I gave the D60 away shortly after that to a worthy person
edit .. just remembered a Danish research place found that CD was faster than a Canon DSLR PD

Anyway it is academic as the Alpha 7 [ I assume that is the A7 ] has both systems built into it? [ FF 24Mp ? ]

3) I am sure that my GH2 could be mistaken for a DSLR ... which of course it is but without a mirror ... bit over 1kg with its zoom and covered with dials and levers

edit #2 With cameras as complicated as they are now I very much doubt that going into a camera store and playing for awhile will tell you much ... in simpler times I maintained that give me a 100ft roll of film and a different movie camera and I would be using that camera same as any other by the end of the first 100ft 2'40" at 24fps. I think I am on my tenth digital camera buying new on specs rather than feel and usually keeping them not trading in. [My son has three of them bless his cotton socks ]

[jcuknz]

Hi Elizabeth, My heart goes out to you! It must be terrible to lose all of your equipment, then not be happy with what you bought to replace it. Like you, I prefer my photos (people, landscapes, animals and birds) to be true to life in terms of colour. It's beginning to sound, from a number of people's comments including yours, as if I should go with a full-frame camera right now, and keep an eye on developments regarding mirrorless cameras. Technology constantly moves forwards and there will be scope to add mirrorless to the kit later.

In all politeness and kindness I wonder if you judge SOOC or if you have a good editor to post process with before judging ... having brought up a cellphone file to a good result I believe people should put as much effort into PP as they do taking photos. Having spent all the money that we do on cameras it is strange that people apparently do not finish the job ... forgive me if this is not the situation.

[Manfred M]

1) Surely Manfred you can correct this problem by adjusting the brightness of the EVF I have the GH2 and have never found the EVF to be dark except when deliberately manually adjusting exposure to under expose [ or vice versa to over expose] a feature of some Panasonic cameras up to three stops either way to simulate how some people judge exposure through the viewfinder ... never done that myself, not clever enough

So far as I can tell on the GX7, I can adjust the brightness of the screen but not the electronic viewfinder. The situation in my case is exacerbated by my wearing glasses, so I get a bit of reflection when I press the glasses against the viewfinder.

Taking the glasses off and using the diopter adjustment to set things right for my eyes is not a option. The main correction I have in my glasses is for astigmatism, and the only solution that half-works is toric contact lenses. Even that is is only a partial solution as the torics as they rotate and have to settle back into position whenever one blinks. For me the only practical solution is to shoot with glasses. Both the D90 and especially the D800 with the much larger viewfinder are much better with glasses.

2) admittedly I was comparing an old apple [Canon D60] with a new orange [Pany G3] but I couldn't see any difference in practical terms between the systems ... I know in a testing lab situation there is a difference ... but when using my rig in a deliberately difficult situation for PD my CD snapped into focus just the same as in bright sunlight and I had a very difficult task to stop it focusing ... I found it quite amusing and reassuring. I gave the D60 away shortly after that to a worthy person
edit .. just remembered a Danish research place found that CD was faster than a Canon DSLR PD

Anyway it is academic as the Alpha 7 [ I assume that is the A7 ] has both systems built into it? [ FF 24Mp ? ]

When compared to the phase detect in the DSLRs is much faster than the contrast detect in my mirrorless. The lag seems to be in the 1/4sec+ range which may not seem like much when photographing things that aren't moving, but is definitely problematic when taking action shots where there is motion.

As for the Alpha 7, I can't comment.

3) I am sure that my GH2 could be mistaken for a DSLR ... which of course it is but without a mirror ... bit over 1kg with its zoom and covered with dials and levers

edit #2 With cameras as complicated as they are now I very much doubt that going into a camera store and playing for awhile will tell you much ... in simpler times I maintained that give me a 100ft roll of film and a different movie camera and I would be using that camera same as any other by the end of the first 100ft 2'40" at 24fps. I think I am on my tenth digital camera buying new on specs rather than feel and usually keeping them not trading in. [My son has three of them bless his cotton socks ]

Sorry about the crappy, backlit iPad shot. I just wanted to show the relative size of my three cameras.

The going from left to right; Nikon D90 (1.5x crop frame), the Panasonic GX7 (2.0 x crop frame) and the Nikon D800 (a medium size FF body). The GX7 is tiny sitting beside the other two. This means that the camera designer has less "real estate" in where to position the on-camera controls, and this does affect the way I shoot with it.

As I said before, I really like the GX7 when I need a small, quiet, light weight camera. It is not my first choice when it comes to taking "critical" shots. Both DSLRs give me more reliable results, especially the D800. On the other hand, I paid about 3 times for for it than the other two cameras (both the D90 and GX7 were around $1000CAD each when I bought them and the D800 was a $3000CAD camera).

[TrishBJ]

Having to wear glasses is a problem for me too. I have significant astigmatism in both eyes, and, also wear multi-focals. It's so easy to end up looking through the 'wrong' part of my glasses to be able to focus easily. It sounds as if the larger viewfinder is a real bonus.

[Mike Buckley]

I just want to mention that this discussion that compares the current and anticipated state of the two systems has been very informative to this lurker. I'll now return to lurk mode.

[pnodrog]

Mike I have been lurking too but I think that's OK. It's stalking that will get you into trouble.

[ajohnw]

Manfred. Not sure if Panasonic have it but some of the Olympus cameras set viewfinder brightness according to the exposure. There is also a setting which is great for shooting in the dark, even when I can't see what I am shooting, the camera can. This setting if you have it may be more suitable for you.

My feeling is that the main difference between m 4/3 mirrorless and crop is noise with iso but it's not an easy one to characterise against my D7000 and I doubt if the new D7xxxxxxxxxxx are significantly different. The noise itself is different. The nikons tends to be all over the place. E-M1 much more dark end only and possibly a bit better than the E-M5 but that could easily be down to sensor to sensor variations. So here is me with a hardly used D7000 and a few lenses that I don't use so will have to be sold as I usually don't leave things sitting about. To be honest I feel that there isn't that much difference really and you may remember that I have posted test shots taken at 25600 on the E-M5. Given suitable subjects the noise is easily removed. BIF is still TBD but given the few times I have tried it I let myself down rather than the camera letting me down. Since having one fast lens I also have the impression that this impacts of focus speed - as would be expected. Only problem is the price of the lenses but quality is never cheap and on the quality side they are mostly rather well priced really.

I also feel that people who shoot video should think hard before commenting on focus speed as video cameras as far as I am aware use the same technology including phase on chip. There are also plenty of example of what mirrorless cameras will track about on the web

John
-

[Manfred M]

Manfred. Not sure if Panasonic have it but some of the Olympus cameras set viewfinder brightness according to the exposure.

The large LCD screen on the back is adjustable on the GX7, but the EVF is not.

I also feel that people who shoot video should think hard before commenting on focus speed as video cameras as far as I am aware use the same technology including phase on chip.

Serious video shooters NEVER use autofocus, other than perhaps setting up focus before shooting. A sure sign of amateur video is when the camera tracks focus during the shot (things blur in and out), just as they never shoot AWB for exactly the same reason, colour temperature shift in a scene is a pain to correct in post. Just watch how long it takes a camera to track focus when shooting at a standard cine rate; abysmally slow.

When I shoot I will rely on EVT focus peaking (as I recall Olympus did not have that feature at the time I was looking at cameras, I've heard a rumour that they may have introduced that as a firmware update on some models) or an external monitor.

[Adrian]

The other issue, not mentioned, is residual value. Cameras come and go and technology advancement tends to leave us in a replacement cycle very 5 years or so. The investment in good quality lenses is rather significant and tends to tie you into your initial choice of brand (which some then defend to the hilt). There is generally a good used market for Nikon and Canon high end glass that makes the depreciation risk of choosing them more palatable. I am not sure that this would be true of Sony, so if you pick that brand and don't like it, the cost of exit may be higher.

[ajohnw]

Focus peaking as would be expected is ok with faster quality lenses. Not so good when dof is reduced by focal length unless there is plenty of contrast. Much the same as it's demonstrated on youtube on a number of cameras. It seems Sony wouldn't allow Olympus to put it into some of the early Pen's but it was there disguised as an art filter all of the time. Personally I don't rate it that highly when critical focus is needed other than maybe things like a manual 50mm F1.4 is on it - The best of course made by Olympus. To be honest though I see these types of lens as toys now that offer very little if anything over the lenses intended for the camera.

Smaller formats - I can see myself using the Nikon V2 more this year. If I can convince myself that the firmware upgrade really does cure a rather odd image stability problem I will probably buy a rather expensive lens for it. Noise levels on that are poor in some respects. Worse than the cheaper version that has less pixels but under decent conditions and moderate ISO settings it seems to be ok.

John
-