[CLOSED] R u suffering from Sony FullFramitis-check this hot sale of Sony A7 and A7R

Status
Not open for further replies.

zlatko-photo

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
228
Actually, I've shot weddings, all day festivals (where you have to walk around with cameras (plural) et al), junior sports events (ditto and no monopod) and so forth. I don't just pull things from a dark wet place when I'm discussing news and sports photography. Consider shooting all that with what appears to be the industry's slowest AF camera, no thanks.
You were replying to a post that was about "If hiking, kayaking, climbing, traveling, standing on one's feet all day, etc." You put up a photo of pro sports photographers as an example of how you used to stand all day. But it wasn't that. Those guys are using monopods, and not on their feet all day. In my wedding photography example camera body weight matters because it isn't on a monopod.

I actually use an E-M1 with 4/3 lenses, in case you haven't noticed; size has had nothing to do with my ownership decisions. The 35-100mm f2, for example, is bigger and heavier than the Nikon/Canon FOV equivalents (70-200mm f2.8 lenses). The size and weight of the Sony is utterly irrelevant when you have to use lenses that are the same size as that of equivalent Nikon/Canon FF lenses. There is bugger all benefit in this regard to the Sony.
You say: "The size and weight of the Sony is utterly irrelevant when you have to use lenses that are the same size as that of equivalent Nikon/Canon FF lenses." — Tell that to photographers who choose the 6D, 5D2 or 5D3 over the 1DX, all of which use the same lenses. Is the size & weight of the 6D/5D2/5D3 vs. 1DX "utterly irrelevant"? The relevance couldn't be more obvious, even if they use the very same lenses. Not just the same size, but the same. Now Sony offers an even smaller & lighter option and you argue it is utterly irrelevant, no benefit at all. One of the big selling points of mirrorless cameras is smaller & lighter, but somehow this doesn't apply to the camera body? :confused:

It really pays to remember what one posts:
It really pays to include the full quote and not pretend that it said something about "revering the Sony", which it didn't. The full quote was: "No need to feel ashamed. While some M43 colleagues may treat M43 as a faith, other M43 colleagues are format-agnostic and use various formats as their needs and wishes change, sometimes using multiple formats at the same time. Good luck!"

I guess the Fred Miranda forum is the ultimate bellwether regrading Sony's future, as forum views are clearly an indicator of success and massive sales. Taking that one step further, it must mean that most photographers on this forum use the Panasonic 25mm f1.4 lens as it has nearly 700,000 views and they must take bird photos, because that thread has nearly half a million views, and they clearly own an E-M5, as that thread has nearly one million views. Aren't internet numbers great?:biggrin:
You're entirely missing the relevance of the Fred Miranda thread. It doesn't mean that "most" photographers do anything, so it doesn't mean that "most" photographers on this forum are using the Panasonic 25/1.4.
 

budeny

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
1,585
Location
Boulder, CO
I merely balanced the CIPA rating of the A7 with a D810. I think that's fair. When a camera can shoot up to 1200 shots in one charge and another only 340 or less, it's fair to include extra batteries along. But you can't impose your personal opinion on me or others of what is deemed appropriate level of batteries you can carry. You may not need more than 1 battery, but others may if he or she is used to shoot 1000 shots with a DSLR with just 1 battery.
It's only fair to include as much battery(eis) as needed - usually one is necessary to operate camera, but you can't impose your personal opinion on me or others of what is deemed appropriate level of batteries, right?
 

robbie36

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
1,579
Location
Bangkok
Real Name
rob collins
By the way, a Katadyn Pocket Water Filter weighs in at 580grams. With water in it, it weighs the same as the D810 and with hiking, you need to do it every day so you can have safe drinking water.
I have 4 x 7/11s within 5 minutes hiking distance
 

50orsohours

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
2,420
Location
Portland Oregon
I have a quick question for you. What am I supposed to be looking for in this picture? I see that it was taken with the A7. Thanks

Well, I don't know about that. I'm not sure I would use the word "revering" to describe a relationship with any camera/camera system.

I've been an M43 user for 3 1/2 years, with a great lens selection, and assorted bodies. My all time M43 favorite camera to use was the GH2, but it had some pretty substantial flaws in color rendition that required rather a bit of work to get around, so when the EM1 was announced, I decided to go for it. After using it for six months, I just never warmed to the thing, and still kept feeling like I was bumping up against the limits of the sensor for my preferred shooting subjects. I also am not a fan of the "Oly colors" and some of the fundamental choices Oly makes in how they process noise vs detail. So, I was thinking about looking at the GH4 and selling the EM1, but could not get past the feeling that I was not going to get what I was looking for there either (plus the body is just a bit larger than I am comfortable holding (I have small hands)). So, after much deliberation, and some number crunching, as well as handling the A7 in store, I decided to get one.

I VASTLY prefer how the A7 sits in hand to any of my M43 cameras other than the GH2 (I like the handling of both of them equally). It's very comfortable for me. The EVF, while not quite as huge as the EM1 one, is also large and comfortable to use (better than any M43 I have used except the EM1). There are some odd functional quibbles (how they do magnification in playback is pretty weird), but there are other ways that I find it superior to my M43s in terms of functionality (being able to directly control ISO with the thumbwheel without separately selecting it is lovely).

In terms of output....Well, the FF and higher resolution sensor actually does do noticeably better in ways that matter to me. Color depth, tonal gradation, DR, and fine detail are all better enough that it's not a difficult thing to see in the image files. I can also not worry about going above base ISO by a pretty substantial amount before I start losing detail. Since I do landscape and macro work the extra resolution and these other factors are actually important for my shots, and there is a real difference there.

On the other hand, the AWB is a weak point, and the JPGs are pretty bad.....to get anywhere near the most out of these cameras you MUST use RAW. However, the leeway you have in terms of information in the RAWs is pretty astonishing.

In terms of lenses....I bought the Zeiss 24-70mm zoom (got a huge deal on it as part of the system price). Nice lens. Not as amazing a lens as the Oly 12-40mm, but no slouch in terms of IQ. (This lens gets variable reviews....I think it is overpriced for what it is, but, at least my copy of it, is sharp and has great color rendition)..

What nobody seems to mention is that there is an adapter that lets you use ALL of the Alpha mount lenses (including decades of AF Minolta lenses), very effectively and without being very heavy. If you use this, you get fast PDAF focusing and a whole lot of lens options ranging from inexpensive and decent to costly and very good. Sure, it would be great if there were many native lenses available, but until there are, this is a reasonable option. (The adapter seems to have a more responsive implementation of PDAF focusing than the EM1 uses with Four Thirds lenses).

Because of this, in addition to the native 24-70mm, I was able to get a pretty complete (for my purposes) basic kit with quite a nice few lenses that work very well, and ranged from cheap to reasonable, and all have very good AF. (Minolta 50mm f1.7, 50mm macro f2.8, Sony 70-300mm f 4.5-5.6, Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, and a Minolta 70-300mm (which I got before the Sony version and which was very cheap...but has purple fringing, which the Sony 70-300mm does not). All of those lenses (used), combined came in under $1000, and all of them (even the Minolta long telephoto) have produced some very nice shots.

So, the moral of the story? No regrets. I loved many, many things about my M43 gear, and was a VERY devoted user for several years, but it simply was not meeting my needs anymore. The A7 is the first FF camera (other than Leica, which is out of my price range) that is small enough for me to comfortably hold (yes, even with the bigger lenses), and in terms of IQ, is effortlessly able to generate output that it would require a LOT more work to end up with from the M43 sensors.

I'm still very fond of M43, and I may, if Panasonic comes out with a GM2 with an EVF, get one of those as my zippy, around town, inconspicuous camera....for that use, I think the M43 is a better tool, to be honest with you. But for everything else, the A7 fits my needs better at this point in time.

Taken with the A7 and 24-70mm:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



-J
 

jalywol

New to Mu-43
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
8
Well, it was an example to show what I like to shoot, to illustrate what I am finding an advantage to the A7. Of course, since it is heavily reduced to meet the file size limitations here, it's kind of hard to see what I was trying to get at :)

Point being mostly that the higher DR, higher resolution, wider tonal/color gradation, does make a difference in some types of shooting situations, and this was actually one of them. Oh, and also that the 24-70mm lens is pretty good, too.

(The only other shot I have of this field is one taken with an EPL1 and kit zoom about 3 years ago, so I didn't think it would be fair to post that next to this.....and I don't have one taken with a current 16MP M43 sensored camera to put up next to it, sorry.)
-J
 

nathan_h

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
180
Well, it was an example to show what I like to shoot, to illustrate what I am finding an advantage to the A7. Of course, since it is heavily reduced to meet the file size limitations here, it's kind of hard to see what I was trying to get at :)

Point being mostly that the higher DR, higher resolution, wider tonal/color gradation, does make a difference in some types of shooting situations, and this was actually one of them. Oh, and also that the 24-70mm lens is pretty good, too.

(The only other shot I have of this field is one taken with an EPL1 and kit zoom about 3 years ago, so I didn't think it would be fair to post that next to this.....and I don't have one taken with a current 16MP M43 sensored camera to put up next to it, sorry.)
-J
The other shot would be interesting to see. Given the file size reduction when uploading, the MP difference is non material.
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
South Gippsland, Australia
Real Name
Ray, not Oz
Here's that size and weight difference that you claim is "utterly irrelevant". On the left Sony A7R = 465 grams, on the right Nikon D800E = 1000 grams:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#488,291
How about you show the two with say a 70-200mm f2.8 lens attached, or maybe a 400mm f2.8. You do understand that you require a lens attached to a camera for it to be anything other than an ornament?
 

zlatko-photo

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
228
How about you show the two with say a 70-200mm f2.8 lens attached, or maybe a 400mm f2.8. You do understand that you require a lens attached to a camera for it to be anything other than an ornament?
Photographers attach the lens they're going to use, not necessarily the biggest they can find. Sometimes it might be a big lens, other times a small one. With the Sony, it could even be a tiny rangefinder lens. But no matter which lens is attached, the size & weight difference of the bodies always remains. Some find the smaller body appealing, especially if they're carrying or packing several camera bodies. But you claim the size & weight difference is "utterly irrelevant".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom