[navin_bhp]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

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.

Exactly. My expectation of performance and must have feature set may differ from yours. I love Canon's menu system, button placement and ergonomics but that doesn't stop me from exploring other brands. I thought I will love the form factor of mirrorless cameras and tried to switch when the Panasonic G7 came out. I got their best 2.8 lenses but the AF and sensor's were not working for me. I sold them and went back to Canon. When the Olympus OMD EM5 mark II came out I tried that and really loved it. The IBIS on that camera was awesome and the lenses were tiny and super sharp. It is more than good enough for a casual shooter but just not for birds and small animals where you end up needing to crop sometimes. The AF is not fast and accurate for birds and no fast telephoto lenses (at that time). So I went back to Canon again until the A9 and A7R3 came out. At one point I owned a 5D4 and A9 and the Sony lacked only the grip for longer lenses. I added a grip later and problem solved. Also I would like to mention that adding a peak design clutch improved the ergonomics.

Now if you are thinking why would someone change camera gear so often it is just because I find the best deals and in the used market and forums here is the US. I've never lost money while switching gear and I will never buy any of these new unless the price is significantly discounted.

Bottom line is this is a thread about mirrorless gear and all I'm saying is Sony offers some good ones that are capable. I think we all agree about how skill matters more than gear and it has been debated over and over again.

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

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?

I agree with you on the good enough part :-).


With the current lens line up and price (used lenses) I think a Canon 5D4/1DX would be ideal for me if I don't mind carrying the weight. But if weight matters and 400mm is the maximum focal someone needs Sony A7RIII is the one to pick. If Sigma comes up with the 50-600mm for E- mount it would be perfect. I'm yet to try a Canon 300/400 2.8 and 500 f4 with sigma adapter on the Sony body. You know better about Nikon gear so I'm sure there are Canon equivalents. What I consider a standout feature of Sony compared to Canon's I've used is the AF tracking and complete silent shutter.

Originally Posted by Samurai

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.

I've shot birds, fighter jets but not much wildlife other than local zoo. Here are some pics. They are not great but will give you an idea.

[navin_bhp]

If you need to see exif and in high resolution ones they are here http://flickr.com/navinbusy

[androdev]

I don't know how many of you have felt this way but it is getting too awkward to be seen with a camera at vacation places. Even in the most photo-worthy places, I see 99.9% people using phone cameras. So even before phone cameras eventually match conventional camera on image quality, I think cultural "nerdy image" will kill the regular cameras. Forget bulky DSLR which I have not taken out of shelf in the last 5 years, I am barely able to manage with Fuji x100t. I am talking about general family+travel+street type of photography and not any specific wildlife/sports, type.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by androdev

I don't know how many of you have felt this way but it is getting too awkward to be seen with a camera at vacation places.

Oh, I don't know. This Sat, when I was at a nearby lake, a gentleman came walking and asked me to take a photo of him. Even when he saw that I was concentrating. I had to politely tell him that I was waiting for a bird to take off, and if he could start flying in front of a blue and pink sky (lovely atmospheric conditions), I would take his photo. Given that he was a little stout, I guess he couldn't oblige. He walked off in a huff, with a little bit of puff.

But. If it had been a pretty lady asking me, I am sure I could have taken off my 'focus' from the bird for a few seconds :-)

[Thad E Ginathom]

nilanjanray, I'm glad that no pretty lady got in the way of you taking that amazing picture of a stork!

[nilanjanray]

Other segments there too, on DP Review.

https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-for-sports-and-action

https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-for-landscapes

https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-over-2000

[navin_bhp]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Other segments there too, on DP Review.

https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/buyin...rts-and-action

https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/buyin...for-landscapes

https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/buyin...eras-over-2000

Looks like Sony makes it to the top on both over and under $2000 and also for people and events according to dpreview. They seem to like Nikon's a lot as well.

[vikasshu]

Originally Posted by androdev

I don't know how I am talking about general family+travel+street type of photography and not any specific wildlife/sports, type.

In my last two trips I did not take out my camera. Once occasionally while at a beach, I took out the camera. Some times I am worried if investing in newer accessories is worth it or not ??
I also feel sooner or later manufactures of cameras need to come out with sleeker cameras while retaining quality of output. Something like iPod that wiped out cassette players, walkmans etc.

Here are few pics from cellphone.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by vikasshu

Here are few pics from cellphone.

Your compositions are great, and, if the phone-size screen is the intended viewing device, probably the image quality is fine too. But click on those images, then click on them again to see them full size, and it is a different story. They are much noisier than I would expect from a half-decent camera. (unless what I am seeing is the result of the upload/compression process, of course). Perhaps there are phones whose cameras can rival: those within my budget range certainly can't.

I heard that the bottom has fallen out of the compact-camera market. Everybody has a phone, nobody feels the need of a compact camera, not even for the marginally better image quality. Don't we all use our phones for snapshots? Even when I am sitting on my sofa, I don't cross the room to pick up the camera for a cat snap. But the image quality would be very different if I did. Add to that: my daft-cat image can be on Whatsapp from the phone immediately. I'm not a big user of "social media" (apart from a few forums) but for those who document their lives on Whatsapp and facebook there is a huge advantage of those who want instant, not two-or-three-step uploading.

Still, no, my camera is not with me every time I go out. If I had bought a high-end compact, it probably wold be in my bag: I bought mirrorless instead. I can, and have, argued with myself as to the wisdom of that decision, but I still like my mirrorless camera a lot. In fact, I have even been using a couple of fast primes, instead of the super-convenient zoom, recently. But a whole extra bag is not always on my shoulder, and snapshots get taken... on the phone.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I heard that the bottom has fallen out of the compact-camera market. Everybody has a phone, nobody feels the need of a compact camera, not even for the marginally better image quality.
Still, no, my camera is not with me every time I go out. If I had bought a high-end compact, it probably wold be in my bag: I bought mirrorless instead. I can, and have, argued with myself as to the wisdom of that decision, but I still like my mirrorless camera a lot. In fact, I have even been using a couple of fast primes, instead of the super-convenient zoom, recently. But a whole extra bag is not always on my shoulder, and snapshots get taken... on the phone.

Yes, fewer and fewer compact are buying sold apparently. And it is all due to the cameras in phone becoming so much better and the fact, to your point, a lot of people like to upload directly from their phone to social media.

I take a lot of images on my phone too. I have got a few simple editing programs on my phone. These days I rarely bring my cameras unless I am going out on a specific photography occasion. Just dragging even a mirrorless camera along is too much. I like to set off for a specific photography occasion, so I take my camera bag on purpose and decide what to take. But that is very much just a personal thing.

I find photography is very much an individual hobby. At least the actual taking of photographs. I don’t take my cameras to for instance events that I visit with my friends or wife. Because either it ends up me taking simple snapshots (for which I could have used my phone) or it ends up me being alone and concentrating on my photography which my wife/friends enjoy talking/looking/enjoying the event/exibition.

I like to have a project / mission I can concentrate on. Otherwise I most likely will not take my camera anymore. I also find this helps me improve my photography. Apart from the occosional lucky shot, most of what I would consider my best images are typically the ones that I have given a lot of thought and spend a lot of time capturing it. That goes for landscapes, travel as well as street photography I find. (which is not just snapping away)

Jeroen

[vikasshu]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Your compositions are great, and, if the phone-size screen is the intended viewing device, probably the image quality is fine too. on the phone.

Thanks Thad for your compliment for composition.

The forum definitely has size restrictions. We can not upload pictures beyond certain size. Plus I checked original sizes of pics in my hard-drive and they are bigger.

These pics are clicked for average Joe who views them either on his phone, tablet or a desktop. On these mediums you won't find any problem.

There is surely a difference between resolution, dynamic range and colours of pics clicked through a phone and a good camera. I myself argued for this with a friend some days back. Then shared with him pics of my Hong Kong trip to show the difference. From Victoria peak in HK, you get amazing night landscape. The cell phone and DSLR one showed major differences with DSLR one looking more nicer and differences were significant.

What happened to point and shoot cameras may soon happen to DSLR as well. Because the pace of innovation and adaptation is much higher among mobile phone manufacturers. Today's cell phone cameras are way more powerful than yesteryear. In 2012 when I bought my DSLR, cell phone cameras were still in their nascent stages. But most top line cell phone camera and even some of the medium category ones boast amazing pics with DSLR effects. There are friends in my circle who bought DSLR cameras just because they could afford one. They bought some of the costliest lenses, flashes, tripods etc but they've not used them in ages. I think major reason being cameras are bulky and require efforts. And if a cellphone is giving me same experience with lot less hassle and more value add (instant sharing, cool editing tools, effects etc), I'll move there. As humans (majority), we always want to reduce the amount of efforts in whatever we are doing. Here am not referring to TBHP members

Now that does not means DSLRs will get wiped out. There will be individuals who will put their money in quality, flexibility etc and they'll go for these larger cameras. I hope I am not hijacking a discussion on mirrorless cameras with a DSLR one.

[Sebring]

I'm game for the new Sony Alpha MarkIII. It sports a higher resolution EVF, joystick for adjusting the focus point, dual SD card slots and a higher capacity battery. But, what do they mean when they say it supports S-Log3 and Hybrid Log Gamma profiles?

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by Sebring

I'm game for the new Sony Alpha MarkIII. It sports a higher resolution EVF, joystick for adjusting the focus point, dual SD card slots and a higher capacity battery. But, what do they mean when they say it supports S-Log3 and Hybrid Log Gamma profiles?

That is like RAW for video. This means you can make professional videos with this camera. This is targeting GH5 (The video king).

For stills, not much value of these features

[Thad E Ginathom]

I wonder how much these video capabilities add to the cost of such a camera? If they could be omitted for those of us that don't care?

It's just an idle wonder, because I can't imagine it happening. We all love our specs comparisons and want to see good score, even for the stuff we'll never use.

[navin_bhp]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I wonder how much these video capabilities add to the cost of such a camera? If they could be omitted for those of us that don't care?

It's just an idle wonder, because I can't imagine it happening. We all love our specs comparisons and want to see good score, even for the stuff we'll never use.

Canon charges 100$ more for their 5D4's with clog. No such option from Sony. The A7RIII is actually priced very well and has a nice feature set both in paper and practicality. For a video user I think Sony will release the A7SIII to replace A7SII.

Here's some pics taken with my A7RIII