Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Gadgets, Computers & Software (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/)

-   -   Mirrorless or EVIL Cameras (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/93694-mirrorless-evil-cameras-136.html)

Even Panasonic has announced FF mirrorless.
Source: DP Review Link

I sold mine. But I'm missing the tiny little sharp lenses like 12/f2, 45/1.8 and 75/1.8. Still have a Panasonic G7 in the car if I have to travel light.

I will eventually try out the Canon EOS R. I just switched to Sony in Feb. Initially got the A9 and then sold it because I got a great deal on A7RIII.

With the recent EOS R mount release it's good to see canon didn't give up on EF-M mount and released a 32mm f1.4 lens.

I'm thinking you didn't consider the sony bodies?

Here's what I think about the current Sony and Canon mirrorless cameras.

A9:
+ Superb AF
+ 20fps Silent shutter with no flicker (awesome feature that will spoil you)
+ It's quite fast and with a 300mbps card you will forget about the buffer
+ Nice feature set
+ The Z battery is amazing
+ Eye AF is super cool and actually works great
+ Size & weight

- The body cannot accommodate your pinky finger. (They have an accessory for this priced at 120$ :Frustrati )
- Leather and overall build is not as good as Canon.
- No budget telephoto lens options
- With Sigma MC11 and metabones adapter you are limited to some AF modes and only focus points close to center are reliable.
- Not as weather resistant as Canon pro bodies (may be I just feel that way)
- Limited touch screen functionality

A7RIII

+ Sensor is awesome and lots of room to crop.
+ AF is not as great as A9 but still will do the job even for wildlife and flying stuff
+ Works well with Canon lenses using Sigma MC11 adapter
+ Share's the last 4 +'ves of A9

- Should have had the dial on the top left like the A9
- Buffer is not that great even with a 300mbps card. (Only affects when you shoot birds in flight, or air shows)
- Native fast lenses are pricey compared to canon. (Although the 85 1.8 was amazing for the price)
- All -ve's of A9 as well.

Canon EOS R
+The adapters are great especially the one with variable ND filters. (Priced right as well)
+ flip screen
+ Nice button customization options.
+ Build looks great
+ Top LCD screen
+ Flip screen

- Being so late to the party the camera features feels a lot inferior to Sony's offerings
- No IBIS
- Low FPS
- No joy stick to move AF points
- No Dual card slot (only for pros or those who like to save raw's on a separate card )

I'm hoping canon will release a A9 contender within a year.

No. I prefer a solid reliable allrounder (with good ergonomics). Besides, no reason to switch even if another company comes up with something better. Once gear crosses the 'good enough' stage, then other things become more important than gear.

Well, Good enough is subjective but I get your point. My point is Sony easily rivals even the top of line Canikon bodies. Imagine having 20fps with silent shutter and eye detect working on humans (and animals). All this without shutter blackout! Wouldn't that be something?

I know we all love the brands we are used to and want them to come up with a capable mirrorless body. It would be wonderful to use the lenses we are used to with full functionality on a smaller body which gives a weight advantage.

No, not for practical use, for wildlife and nature. Ergonomics, balance etc. matter a lot. Specs in isolation matter very little. And there is this thing called decreasing marginal utility. If one needs 20 fps to take an action shot, and can't manage with 10-14, then the problem is with the photographer.

And can you really say that Sony's AF is better than Nikon's? :) Anyway, if one is pushing the envelope, photographer skill matters more. At current level of AF technology.

I think the question is not what we need to use and and what we should upgrade. I think the point is most of the folks are not professionals. And hence many may not want to get to upgrade but would be happy with what they have.

Unless there is a very compelling proposition combined with a significant shift advantage in terms of price.

Why?

Yes, you sacrifice a bit of ergonomics for size but adding a grip solves that(and it adds very little weight). Also, needing 20fps is different from being able to take advantage of 20fps. Not sure why you are bringing skill into this.

Yes. Sony is better. Have you used the A9 or A73? Even the A7R III can match the big guys AF performance. I have not used a Nikon D5 or D850 but I'm comparing to 5D4, 1DXI and II.

Totally agree on that. The price may not justify the usage for a casual hobbyist. Everything about Sony mirrorless full frame is expensive. But for pro's the body is cheap for what it offers. The lenses are expensive but they hold their value and reselling is not a problem( In US at least). The prices will go down eventually as Canon, Nikon and Panasonic has entered the FF market. I hope Olympus will jump in as well. I wish for a Sigma 120-300 2.8 and 50-600mm for FE mount :)

1. I wouldn't use a Sony. Could work for others. If I were into video, which I am not, then my weightage for certain aspects might have been different.

2. One can't consider camera gear without factoring in use cases and skill. Well, one can have theoretical discussions, but what is the point in that?

3. Unless you have used Multi-CAM 20K, how can you say that Sony AF is best? I did mention Nikon. Anyway, even if it were best, it wouldn't matter, because my skills wouldn't diminish if someone else were using the latest and greatest gear.

4. As I mentioned, as long as gear is 'good enough', other things matter more, at least for me. No new toy (camera body, not talking about lens) will help me understand light or composition better. Or magically increase the number of photography trips by 5X :-)

It's perfectly your personal preference not to use Sony and I'm not trying to change your opinion on that but it is a great mirrorless camera for both photo and video. You seem to convince yourself that nothing but skill matters but it is also true that a better camera in the hands of a skilled person will produce better images. I don't know why you bring in Multi-CAM here but Sony's AF is better than Canon and Nikon DSLR's. I've not used Nikon but I know it is about the same as Canon's AF. Never used their mirrorless offerings so I can't comment on that now. I used a A9 and A7RIII for more than six months and I speak from my experience using the camera and not by reading other's reviews. A lighter camera setup will encourage you to carry it along with you more. Maybe not by 5X ;-)

What is 'better'? I would think that it depends on the user's needs and preferences. There are many nuances. And a lot more to photography than gear, or specs.

I could get into technical discussions about AF, or whether small size is an advantage or disadvantage (for certain use cases), but that depends so much on the user.

All bodies launched in the last five years - across brands - are capable of taking great photos. They are 'good enough'. If one can't take good photos, the issue is with the photographer.

P.S. just curious, in your opinion, which is the best allrounder body for nature (including landscapes) and wildlife, across all brands (mirrorless or with mirror)? Factoring in brand ecosystem and field use e.g. encountering dust, rain and perhaps snow? And why, after considering the trade-offs?

Just curious... have you done bird/wildlife photography? I have done some bird photography when I had DSLR, but gave up once moving to mirrorless. I agree with Nilanjan that mirrorless is not for long distance photography like bird or wildlife.

Well, I was not getting into a mirrorless or DSLR debate, but just saying that what is 'best' depends on the person and his/her basket of needs and wants. And that cameras are so good now - and have been so good now for the last few years - that other things matter a lot more than incremental improvement in specs.

Here is an interesting quote, not sure by whom.
"Every time someone tells me how sharp my photos are, I assume that it isn't a very interesting photograph. If it were, they would have more to say."

And an interesting article.
https://petapixel.com/2013/08/03/the...ition-problem/

Perhaps that person might have remarked that they learnt to focus and hold the camera still early in their careers!

Sharpness, focus and camera shake are all very different things. Still, I cant even begin to understand these endless debates about sharpness.

It is not something I worry about.

Jeroen

That should become hygiene. Through lots of practice. And by taking the help of support or stabilization (body or lens). Or just steady hands :)

Shot over the weekend. Don't ask about gear, because that wasn't important. Ordinary subject (painted stork), but interesting light and colour.