Mirrorless Camera

[xpatUSA]

<>

In any case, here's a comparison. I usually shoot full frame, although I also have an APSC body and a small MFT body. When shooting my FF, my most common combination is the body with the EF 24-105 L lens. That combination weighs 1595 g. The mirrorless alternative, the R5 with the RF 24-105 lens, weights 1438 g. The weight savings is 10%.<>

A good case for the MFT - where the equivalent lens would be 12-52mm i.e. much, much lighter, eh?

I just weighed a couple camera/lens:

Sigma SD9 + 17-50mm f/2.8 - 1588g.

Lumix DC-G9 + 12-32mm - 991g.

[DanK]

A good case for the MFT - where the equivalent lens would be 12-52mm i.e. much, much lighter, eh?

Indeed. I do use an MFT much of the time when traveling. On screen, the results are fine. Printed large, they are OK but not on a par with FF. But then again, my MFT is older and not the same generation as my FF>

[rpcrowe]

If I were looking for a lightweight camera/lens outfit based on weight and size alone that would suit my needs to shoot people or animals (which is why AF is a high consideration for me)... I "think" that I would select the APSC Sony A6600 and a Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 lens which combined weigh is 978 G.

If I wanted full frame. I would consider the Sony A7C with the new Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 which weigh right close to two pounds or less than a kilogram for the combination.

[Manfred M]

I switched to Sony because of their excellent autofocus systems but, I did not get the top-notch AF I expected using either Sigma MC-11 or Metabones 4 adapters with Canon glass... In fact, my Canon 100mm f/2.8 (non-L) macro would not AF at all with either of the two adapters I used!

I have a friend who added a Sony to supplement his Canon DSLR and had very much the same experience as you did; Sony autofocus does not play nice with Canon lenses and the autofocus, while accurate enough was very slow.

The other issue I am somewhat concerned with is the layout of controls on the mirrorless. My experience with my Panasonic GX-7 was not great; the smaller body necessitated some trade-offs in terms of putting controls on the camera body versus having these functions in a menu that required me to take my eye off the viewfinder to make certain settings. Granted, I was comparing a mFT body against a full-frame camera with a lot more "real estate" for controls, but even after more than 50,000 images with the smaller camera, it is not something I ever really adapted well to.

That being said, when I compared a full-frame Nikon Z7 against my D810. the difference was far less pronounced. I almost always shoot with a handle / battery pack on my D810 (much of my work is in vertical / portrait orientation), so until I handled a body with a grip, I'm not sure on my direction here.

With Canon, Nikon and Panasonic competing with Sony, the choice of going mirrorless is less straight forward than it once was. I have a friend who switched from Canon to the Panasonic S5 and continuously sings its praises. A lot of reviews put the Canon ahead of the Sony cameras and the Nikons on par with them.

I see no reason to switch to a mirrorless camera right now, but strongly suspect that I will be going that way when the next generation Nikons (replacesments for the Z7ii) is announced. My D810 is getting long in the tooth, but still serves me we for the type of work I do. If I need a light body, I still use the Panasonic GX-7 from time to time.

[rpcrowe]

Manfred... Regarting adapting Canon glass to Sony bodies. The best MC-11 + Canon lens combination I used was the Sony A6500 + Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens...



However the performance of that combination (especially for Eye-AF) was still not consistent. Sometimes it would lock on right away and other times it would hunt. However, the native Sony 85mm f/1.8 e-mount lens just beats the pants off the Canon glass + any adapter in focusing speed and accuracy and, since it doesn't require an adapter, the package weight is lighter than the Canon lens + adapter. The Sony 85mm lens has a focus hold button which can be adapted for almost any use. When I shot with the A6500, I had that button programmed for Eye-AF, since only Cameras like the A6400 and later issues (and A7iii with firmware update) have full-time Eye-AF...

There are now several 75-85mm lenses available for Sony cameras which equal or surpass the Sony 85mm f/1.8 but, which are still considered somewhat lightweight. (Samyang, Viltrox and Sigma among others).

Both the Canon 70-200mm f/4L and the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ii lenses were, in my opinion, slow and inconsistent in focusing with adapters. What surprised me, however was that the best adapted performance with the long focal length Canon glass and my APSC A6500 was using a cheap Viltrox focal reducer as the adapter. Note: By the time I transitioned to the A6400 and later Sony cameras, I no longer used adapters. Therefore, I can't give an opinion on the use of adapters with the A6400, A6600 and A7iii. However, I suspect that the performance might be very similar to that of the A6500 with adapters.

Focusing with the focal reducer was was somewhat slower than with the Metabones or MC-11 but it was quite accurate and did not hunt. However, I would lose the 1.5x crop factor advantage of an APSC camera when I used the focal reducer although I gained a stop in exposure. The slower AF reduced the utility of the long-lens combination, since I usually shoot faster moving subjects (animals and aircraft) with longer lenses.

My favorite lenses for shooting dogs and people with either my Sony APSC or Full-frame cameras are the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and Sony 70-200mm f/4 G. Either lens mounted on an APSC A6400 or A6600 or full-frame A7iii provides top-notch focusing and excellent image quality at a relatively reasonable weight. Eye AF might be considered a crutch for some folks but, it has become the standard of the industry and, IMO is a joy to shoot with for shots of people or animals...

Speaking of focal reducers - I really like adapting some of my longer focal length legacy lenses with a focal reducer. A 135mm f/2.8 legacy lens will give me an equivalent of about 135mm f/2.0 when adapting the lens with a Kipon Bayess Focal Reducer. This is super for portraits outdoors...

I was never able to use manual focus lenses on my Canon DSLR gear with any amount of efficiency. However they are really easy to use on any of my Sony mirrorless cameras, thanks to focus assist and focus peaking. They are, IMO, every bit as easy to use as manual focus lenses were on the SLR cameras that were built for manual focus. If I were using an Sony APSC camera and needed a really wide lens that produces excellent image quality, I would opt for the manual focus Samyang 12mm f/2.0 lens.

[xpatUSA]

A good case for the MFT - where the equivalent lens [to 24-105mm] would be 12-52mm i.e. much, much lighter, eh?

... or maybe not so much lighter because the minimum f-number would be halved:

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/art...nce/index.html

e.g. with a crop factor of 2, f/2.8 becomes f/1.4 with all that that implies ...

[Manfred M]

... or maybe not so much lighter because the minimum f-number would be halved:

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/art...nce/index.html

e.g. with a crop factor of 2, f/2.8 becomes f/1.4 with all that that implies ...

I think you have your values backwards, Ted - the f/2.8 becomes f/4.

The "problem" with the smaller form factors is that one gets deeper DoF. Cosina made a lot of money with their ultra-fast ~ f/1 mFT lenses (Voigtländer) especially for film makers looking for shallow depth of field shots shooting mFT cameras. At one time all interchangeable lens video cameras Panasonic made were mFT.

[rpcrowe]

Obviously when we "talk" about equivalent f/stops between different image sizes (MFT-APSC-FF) we are talking about "equivalent DOF" based on the normal shooting distance at which we use these lenses on the various format sizes, not in the exposure we use.

What I am saying is that a correct exposure of, say 1/100 second @ f/16, using an ISO of 100, would be the same despite shooting on MFT, APSC or full-frame sensors. If this were not true, we would need to include sensor size as a factor in determining exposure. Imagine the problems with the rule of "Sunny 16" if we said that the correct exposure on a sunny day would be the reciprocal of the ISO using f/16 for full frame cameras and f/11 for MFT cameras.

As far as the DOF difference between F/F and the smaller sensor sizes: in reality F/F provides a wider DOF, not the more narrow DOF than is generally accepted. (Do the math with a DOF table say using a 100mm lens at f/2.0 on all three sensors - shooting from the same distance).

Why we generally consider the full-frame sensor as providing a more narrow DOF is because of the distance at which we will shoot an image on cameras of different sensor sizes. Obviously if we wanted to fill the frame with the same focal length lens on a full frame camera, we would shoot from a closer distance than if we were shooting with a camera utilizing a smaller sensor. This shooting distance is the reason that the larger sensor is touted with producing a more narrow DOF.

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by xpatUSA A good case for the MFT - where the equivalent lens [to 24-105mm] would be 12-52mm i.e. much, much lighter, eh?

I think you have your values backwards, Ted - the f/2.8 becomes f/4.

I think not, Manfred, sorry:

In Section 4 of the reference to LumoLabs it says:

... consider the popular 35mm-equivalent (50mm, f/1.4, ISO 100) camera: At c=2, the equivalent crop-2 camera would be a FourThirds (25mm, f/0.7, ISO 25) camera.

I did mean the m4/3 equivalent of a 135-format camera.

[Manfred M]

I think not, Manfred, sorry:

In Section 4 of the reference to LumoLabs it says:



I did mean the m4/3 equivalent of a 135-format camera.

I wonder if we are saying the same thing, but from opposite directions?

If I shoot the same scene position using a 50mm focal length on my full frame camera at f/4, I would get the same framing and depth of field shooting a 25mm focal length at f/2 with my mFT camera.

[xpatUSA]

As far as the DOF difference between F/F and the smaller sensor sizes: in reality F/F provides a wider DOF, not the more narrow DOF than is generally accepted. (Do the math with a DOF table say using a 100mm lens at f/2.0 on all three sensors - shooting from the same distance).

You're right: I did the DOF math for 100mm f/2 shot at 100m for m43 and FF.

m43: 66 yds.
FF: 189 yds.

[xpatUSA]

I wonder if we are saying the same thing, but from opposite directions?

If I shoot the same scene position using a 50mm focal length on my full frame camera at f/4, I would get the same framing and depth of field shooting a 25mm focal length at f/2 with my mFT camera.

Lumo's definition of equivalence is indeed where the result is identical images.

[William W]

. . . I have a friend who added a Sony to supplement his Canon DSLR and had very much the same experience as you did; Sony autofocus does not play nice with Canon lenses and the autofocus, while accurate enough was very slow.

What does your friend shoot with the Sony - sports action, dance?

My point being "very slow" is a comparative, not necessarily a deal breaker for many (most?) real world photography situations, I think that it is too easy to get heated up with 'fast AF' - accurate, yes: 'fastest', usually not necessary.

WW

[DanK]

What does your friend shoot with the Sony - sports action, dance?

My point being "very slow" is a comparative, not necessarily a deal breaker for many (most?) real world photography situations, I think that it is too easy to get heated up with 'fast AF' - accurate, yes: 'fastest', usually not necessary.

WW

True, but even for people who really do benefit substantially from even faster AF (I'm not one), there's no reason now to compromise. For a few years, many people who had a lot of Canon glass they wanted to keep but who wanted a good mirrorless body bought Sony bodies and fussed with aftermarket adapters for their Canon lenses. IMHO, there is no reason to do that now. Canon now sells superb mirrorless bodies, and from what I've read, they work very well with Canon EF lenses. So it seems to me that the two leading choices would be: (1) if you like your Canon glass, buy a Canon body, or (2) if you don't care about your Canon glass, buy into whatever mirrorless system you prefer. From what I've read, Nikon isn't all that far behind, so the same should be true of Nikon soon if it isn't already.

[Manfred M]

What does your friend shoot with the Sony - sports action, dance?

My point being "very slow" is a comparative, not necessarily a deal breaker for many (most?) real world photography situations, I think that it is too easy to get heated up with 'fast AF' - accurate, yes: 'fastest', usually not necessary.

WW

He had issues with flying aircraft (he travels to air shows all over Eastern North America) and birds in flight. Works well enough for portraiture.

[Manfred M]

Probably so. Lumo's definition of equivalence is indeed where the result is identical images.

What is your definition thereof?

Basically the same as Lumo's, I expect, but as a print maker there is always looking at a few more issues (degree of magnification in a print (obviously a larger sensor is better) and the impacts of lens resolution in larger print sizes (again image degradation from enlargement).

[Tronhard]

I hope I can hop in here with two perspectives:
First the questions I recommend anyone ask themselves before considering a new purchase: but before all:
What does your current system not do for your purposes?

1. Budget: whatever it is, stick to it. It's too easy to get up-sold...
2. What is your commitment: How serious are you about photography to make a decent return on investment. It also touches on your long-term involvement for which a greater investment might be valid.
3. What are you shooting: For me, because of the cropping effect on FoV, FF sensors provide benefits at the wide angle and for lower light, but crop sensors provide more pixel density at the telephoto end. e.g. a 50MP FF sensor cropped to APS-C has its pixel count reduced to about 17 MP, whereas a 40 MP APS-C sensor gives the same pixel density as a cropped image from a 100 MP FF sensor. That means one can crop more if one cannot (or dare not) get any closer to the subject.
4. What are you going to produce? For me, this is a critical question. If one is going to produce large, detailed prints, then the investment is high-performance systems (bodies and lenses) is pretty critical. However, if one is going to produce smaller prints or provide digital or on-line output, the demands are much lower.
5. What are you prepared to carry? As we age or have issues, heavier gear may spend more time at home!
6. What about the ergonomics and controls? A camera may have great specs but be a monster to interface with.

As regards the Canon EOS R6. I have invested in this system for a couple of reasons:

Questions A, 1 & 2:
I have an interest in the equipment side of photography as well as the actual taking of images, hence my investment in the new tech.
3. I prefer wildlife, although I shoot across the range with scenic, close-up, architectural subject. I usually shoot hand-held in available light.
4. I occasionally produce images up to A2 size but mostly shoot for display on Hi-res digital displays and to post on sites like this. The 20MP of the R6 is more than adequate for this, even cropped.

For an example. Here is a FF shot of the NZ Kea, taken with the R6 and the RF 100-500, hand-held in available light. It should be noted the bird's plumage creates an effect of reducing sharpness of its feathers for its protection.


This is the same image cropped fairly heavily:


5. I am reasonably fit at the moment, and the R-series bodies and lenses are generally smaller and lighter than their DSLR equivalents.
6. The controls and menus are very familiar Canon ones, so the change has been pretty smooth. I just set up the C1-3 controls for Animal, Human and Auto eye AF, plus some other settings for shooting speed etc.

I wanted the IBIS and Eye tracking (both human and animal) as I shoot mostly animals at long range, so having the benefit of a combination of IBIS and lens IS is a benefit. For me, the eye tracking is a game changer and I don't think there is another system to match it at present. Finally, I can use my existing EF lenses via the adapter, which works perfectly so far.

As to the sensor size. The R5 has more pixels, but with its lower pixel count the R6 seems to offer about 1 EV better dynamic range, according to my research and experience (a friend with an R5 and I did some experiments). There is a good video on the relative merits of the R6 vs. R5 by Australian bird photographer Duade Paton see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpEK5H2Riwg&t=9s. Also a review on the R6 for photography by Gordon Laing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6E6aGswzcE

The R5 is a lot more expensive, and as a stills photographer I am paying for video like 8k recording. Also, to accommodate the video throughput the R5 has one SD and on CF Express card (VERY expensive!!!) that I don't need, so the dual SD cards of the R6 suit me far more.

So far I have not been disappointed. The IBIS and AEAF are brilliant, especially used with RF lenses - but I have also successfully used Sigma 160-600C, 60-600S and the Canon EF-L 100-400 MkII, 70-200 (f/2.8 II and f/4 II) lenses without issues.