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-166.html)

As someone stepping into the world of cameras, I am looking for some suggestions.

I hope to use it for most landscape photography but also click some birds and wildlife as and when possible. I can't spend much today but want to get something which remains relevant and compatible in the upcoming years. With all this in mind and a very basic groundwork, I am now stuck with a bunch of DSLRs and mirrorless ones. Is it worth going for a DSLR today or get a mirrorless instead?

As I understand, a DSLR will be cheaper to buy, compatible with a lot of lenses, longer battery life, better focus and gives good photos but the technology itself is slowing setting down. Mirrorless are comparatively more expensive, consume more battery life, light and compact, future ready.

DSLR shortlist: Nikon 7500, Canon EOS 90D
Mirrorless shortlist: Nikon Z5, Canon EOS R7, Canon EOS R10, Nikon Z50

Once I finalize the body, I will pick an all-rounder lens to training and general use case.

Go with mirrorless for long term use. For wildlife you will need a long lens so check which system you want to get into. Shortlist the lens first and then go for the body.

This is exactly what I am interested in my photography hobby too, so I thought I could share my experience.

I am not sure this is all correct. For lens compatibility, yes, DSLRs are compatible with a lot of older lenses. But, on the other hand, very limited new lenses are being developed for DLSRs, and most of the new lenses are being developed for mirrorless systems. So unless you have a bunch of legacy lenses already with you, I would say lens compatibility is actually lot better with mirrorless cameras. "Better focus" is also debatable. In fact, modern mirrorless have such amazing autofocus systems that very few DSLRs can even compete with that. For example, even the relatively entry level Sony mirrorless cameras have better autofocus system than many of the advanced DSLRs of the past. In fact, when I discuss this topic with my photographer friends, they all say that great autofocus systems is one of the primary reasons they moved to mirrorless!

I agree. Battery life though much lower than DSLRs, it is not a big problem because most modern mirrorless cameras offer direct USB-C charging without having to remove batteries etc., and it is very easy to plug it in for some time and top off the battery. I have never felt limited battery life (which is true) as a real problem in my use of mirrorless over many travels and trips in last 6-8 months compared to my earlier use of DSLRs. Also, simply carrying an extra battery in the bag solved this problem too. My Nikon Z5 came with two batteries in the kit, and with that plus USB-C charging, I never have to worry about battery life.

In fact, with USB-C charging, I can charge my camera in my car too, just like I charge my phone, if required!

Overall, I would recommend getting a mirrorless camera! Today's mirrorless systems are incredibly advanced and competent. There is no reason to go with DSLRs in this era, especially for someone starting out with a new system and not having to worry about legacy lenses and other ecosystem issues.

I was earlier using Nikon D3500, and last year I shifted to Nikon Z5 with Nikon Z 24-200mmf/4-6.3 VR lens. I still use both the camera for differnet purposes, but I really love the mirrorless system.

You can read my review (and my landscape photographs) of Nikon Z5 here: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadge...vr-review.html

Although I am happy with Nikon Z5 for my use case, I would say Nikon Z6-II is a much better option (it does have a few critical improvements) if your budget allows for it.

I would certainly not recommend D7500 in this era. It is too heavy, bulky, and has an APS-C sensor when for slightly more money you can get a full-frame mirrorless such as Z5.

Unfortunately my own experience is limited to Nikon, but both Sony and Canon make some incredible mirrorless systems too, and you can not go wrong with any of those either. You have plenty of cameras and lenses options in mirrorless world now from all three - Nikon, Canon and Sony.

As an all round lens, Nikon Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3VR is great and I am loving it for my travel needs (as I explained in that review link). However, it is still not useful for birds. For that, I once rented Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR and loved it on my Z5. You can see sample images from that combination here: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadge...ml#post5698201

By the way, if you are mainly going to do only landscape photography, then I would say that even APS-C systems are great. They have added advantage of bigger depth of field at narrow apertures (such as f/8 to f/11), which is great for landscapes. On full-frame, often one has to use focus stacking techniques to get the entire landscape in focus (even at narrow aperture like f/11, you can't get the entire landscape in focus in a full-frame). Full-frames are great for shallow depth of field to isolate the subjects and create nice defocused backgrounds. But that is not what one wants in a landscape photography. So you can consider that as well.

Sony and Canon have some excellent ASP-C mirrorless systems. So you could consider those as well.

Dear Photography enthusiasts,
I am a hobbyist photographer and planning to upgrade from my 14 year old Nikon D5100 to a mirrorless system.
I don't mind changing the ecosystems as I have only two lenses with my Nikon (50mm prime and 18-200 zoom lens).

Although I have shortlisted the Sony a7IV and the Sony A7C2, I am very much open to suggestions.

My usage is mostly for wildlife and landscape photography, although I am planning to explore some street photography with the new gear.

Can you suggest which one would better suit my needs?
I have thought of Sony due to their best Auto focus in the industry and their very deep eco system in the mirrorless segment.

Thanks in advance.

Both are very good cameras, and you can not go wrong with either. However, out of the two, my recommendation is a7IV. Primarily because of better form factor, design, and better Electronic View Finder (EVF) than a7C2. The EVF in a7C2 is not that great, and EVF is something that I consider a very critical factor in photography experience. (In fact, Nikon Z6II has a much better EVF than either of these Sony cameras, at a cheaper price point, but of course, it lags behind the Sony cameras in autofocus performance.)

Further, whether you like or need that compact form factor of Sony a7C series of cameras, which comes at the cost of some loss of ergonomics and some unusual design elements, is a personal call. I personally do not like these compact cameras, and instead find handling more "conventional" camera designs much easier and intuitive. As it is, even the "conventional" mirrorless Full frame cameras such as a7IV are lightweight enough and compact enough to use. There is no real need to go for further lighter and compact a7C in my view. And finally, a7CII also lacks AF joystick. You can decide for yourself how important that is for you. For example, on my Nikon Z5, I use the AF joystick all the time, and I consider that as a very important feature.

Given all this, my choice would be a7IV over a7CII for sure. Of course, your mileage may vary!

I use Nikon and in Nikon, I find my Z5 much better to fit in hands and to operate the dials etc than my D3500 which is way too compact and lightweight. In other words, way too light and way too compact is not necessarily the best thing for a camera (unlike mobile phones or other gadgets).

So my suggestion would be to please visit a store and play around with both the cameras in your hand and see which one feels better in your hand, which one has ergonomics that you like, and whether the poor EVF in a7C2 or the lack of AF joystick are deal-breakers for you. Everything else is almost the same in these two Sony cameras anyway. But again, personally, my choice would be a7IV for sure.

Dear AD Sir,
I am a big fan of your posts. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on my query. You have hit the nail on the head with the drawbacks of the A7C2 vs the A7IV.

I am yet to test these cameras in a store hands on. Have handled the A7III and that camera felt very comfortable to hold on and quite ergonomically designed.
Thanks again for the invaluable insights. Will get to a store and finalize something. Will keep you and the other folks updated here.

Have a great day!

I have an alpha 6000 bought a decade ago, and it gives much better results than my S23 with the 50mm prime lens from Sony, but NOT with the kit lens. I have in fact never used the kit lens, it was poor a decade ago and still is. So a great lens is required to get the best out of that sensor. Suggest you to rent a great prime lens and play with it for a week and then decide.

I have the impression that the a7iii was the breakthrough camera for Sony, that many more people felt was a real rival to DSLR. I also think that it still sells well, even to professionals who feel that it does what they want and there is no need to splash out on the a7iv, or the latest a7Rv/a6700/a7c2 generation of AF/tracking/etc.

I bought my current main camera last October. I had decided to go full frame rather than the seemingly-logical upgrade from a6500 to a6700 apsc. Thus, my camera is at least one generation behind the very latest. It maxed out my spending possibility, was a lot more up to date than a6500, sported new menu system and seemed like a good camera to buy for 5-10 years use.

I don't have mixed feelings about the camera; I do have some about going FF instead of sticking with aps-c.

Any suggestions where to rent lenses in Bangalore?

Currently I own an APS-C based mirrorless camera. I would want my next camera to have full frame sensor. I have been looking at Sony A7 series and Nikon Z5. In terms of image quality which one would you recommend?

"Image Quality" is a highly technical thing, and honestly, almost all modern mirrorless cameras, especially the full-frame ones, have very good "Image Quality" in terms of ISO performance and low noise, dynamic range, capturing details etc. I have seen detailed technical charts where they do 100% crops and inspect image qualities where I could not see any noticeable difference in most of the full-frame sensors of current generations. Maybe there is some difference when you go to extremes such as some crazy high ISO values which we will never use in practice, or something like that.

Further, the practical aspect of "quality of a photograph" is very different and orthogonal to the sensor "Image Quality". Photograph quality depends on things such as compositions, colors, lights and shadows. These are all in the hands of the photographer. I spend a lot of time on Flickr these days browsing photos from around the world, and when I closely observe those images, many of the great photos have ordinary or sometimes poor "image quality". But that is totally irrelevant unless you purposely look at a 100% crop and go searching for issues such as noise or purple fringing etc. But from the point of view of the art, those are great photographs, with stunning visual effects, thanks to their great compositions and other elements of visual arts, and not because of their "image quality". So in short, unless you are going to print billboard size images, "image quality" is only an academic matter.

In short, Nikon Z5 and Sony A7 III or A7 IV are almost same in "Image Quality" for all practical purposes. Also note that you mentioned "A7 Series", and that is a vast series. There, the camera like A7 9 are phenomenally advanced and leagues ahead of the entry level Nikon Z5. Therefore, it is not fair to compare Z5 with "A7 series". At best you can compare Z5 with A7III. So let me comment only about A7III below.

Having said that technical "Image Quality" of the sensor is almost the same (for all practical purposes), there are other more important differences between Nikon Z5 and Sony A7III. And these are the things which you as a photographer will find very relevant in day to day photography and will decide which camera is right for you.

For example, Z5 has a much better Electronic View Finder (EVF) than A7III. For me, the EVF experience is very important and I love the Nikon Z5/Z6 EVF. Further, I love Nikon menu system and controls, and it is all very intuitive to me. Sony has a very cumbersome and awkward menu systems and non-intuitive controls, and that may or many not be a problem to you.

On the other hand, Sony A7III is much better than Z5 in Autofocus system. Z5 Autofocus system is probably the most basic out of all modern full-frame mirrorless cameras, whereas Sony systems is one of the best.

And finally, Sony A7III has higher FPS for fast action shooting than Z5, which is terrible for action shooting. Thus, if fast action and video is your priority, then Z5 is not for you. But on the other hand, if you would mostly shoot still objects, and want great EVF, and a very intuitive menu systems and a more classical photography experience, then Z5 is a nice camera!

So these other things are far more relevant and will directly affect the quality of your photographs than the technical "image quality" of the sensor.

Agreed on the FF part. Especially for landscape photography, which many of the members asking for camera suggestions here mention as their main use case.

For landscape photography specifically, I have mixed feelings about full frame cameras. It is incredibly hard to get the entire landscape in tack sharp focus, even when you narrow down the aperture to f/11 or so, in a full-frame camera due to the shallow depth of field. You need to use techniques like focus stacking to get the entire landscape in tack sharp focus. And although my camera has a focus stacking feature built-in, I am too lazy to use that. That also requires a tripod etc. For simple casual handheld shots, it is difficult to get whole scene in focus in a full-frame camera.

On the other hand, in an APSC sensor, you have a much wider depth of field, and while this can be a major disadvantage when shooting close objects and when wanting to isolate the subjects and wanting a lovely bokeh, just for landscapes where you want "all in focus" scene, these ASPC cameras at even f/8 do a great job! I get the entire landscape in tack sharp focus at f/8 in my Nikon D3500 (APSC), and not even at f/11 in my Nikon Z5 (full frame).

If I were to shoot pure landscapes in a trip, I still prefer my Nikon D3500.

But of course, I also shoot other objects and subjects and want to isolate them and produce more specific visual effects, and for that, I prefer Nikon Z5. And of course, going back to that technical "image quality", at times when it does matter, for example when shooting high dynamic range scenes, the full-frame Z5 is leagues ahead of the APSC D3500. So full-frame certainly matters big time in those cases.

So yes, it is not always true that a Full-Frame camera is the best for a given situation and for a given subject and composition, and for the given visual effect that the photographer has in mind.

I might have said this before, but I believe one aspect of all this resolution, full half frame and so is rarely highlighted.

How are you going to look at your images? Is it mainly on your phone, tablet, Laptop or are you going to print them A3 size? It makes a remarkable difference to what extend any of these pro’s and cons materialise.

Jeroen

Since I got back into serious, what I call "real-camera," photography, I have used only Sony, so I can make no comparison with other brands. The idea of retro as a fashion is just a fad. But it is one of those personal things, and, as the guy who does the Photographic Eye channel on youtube, mentioned recently, it is actually important that one wants to pick up the camera and use it!

Personally, I love the look-and-feel of the smaller rangefinder-style cameras: it's the old-fashioned Leica look! Sony's full-frame A7 series does not depart spectacularly from the evolutionary look that came of mirrors and pentagonal prisms. If my a7iv could weigh as much as the film Olympus OM1n that I used to use, I's adore it. But I ask too much. There is just so much more inside a modern mirrorless than there was in a film SLR.

When it comes to image quality, I think that Dr.AD has really hit the nail on the head. However, there is one technical aspect that attracts my attention, and that is being able use higher ISO with less noise. That's a really useful thing in the kind of pictures I take. It is the reason that I chose to move to full-frame.

There is another aspect to image quality, and that is the question, "Will this camera help me to get better pictures?" In both upgrading from a6000 to a6500 (aps-c cameras) and a6500 to a7iv, the answer has been yes. On the a7iv I don't even have to use zones or spots to find, focus, and stay focussed on the right person's eye (well, occasionally I do) and the percentage of pics thrown out for focus is absurdly small.

So I would advise a person to consider their sort of photography, and whether the technological capabilities of one brand or another will help them do that better. I'm told that the competition is catching up, but I'm guessing that if it's got eyes, photograph it with a Sony! rl:

And also, how are others going to look at your images? Most of the people to whom I send my pics are in a world where they will be made to fit in Instagram on a phone. So much for me trying to make sure that there is as little noise as possible in shadowy skin tones! In fact, even being out of focus wouldn't matter a lot. We are left to take pride in out pics for our own sake, and the sake of few who do look at them on, at least, a PC monitor.

Last thought for the post: for all this technology, there are still days when I don't seem to be able to get a good pic. The photographer still counts!

There is some serious master class going on here. The experiences and invaluable amount of knowledge gained here from the likes of Dr. AD and Thad E Ginathom cannot be matched anywhere. I want to appreciate the members for unselflessly sharing such in depth knowledge with us.

Me too! Dr.AD's post was masterly. A person has to understand a technical subject in depth before they can make it easy for others in that way, and let us know what we might be advised to regard as important or not.

I must have taken over 70,000 exposures over the past four or five years. But they are almost all within the same narrow genre (live carnatic music), and within a limited subset of of camera settings. I have (obviously) no control of the stage or its lighting. I have to avoid the cone of the video camera recording/streaming the concert, the compositional possibilities are limited. The majority, indeed, come from the same hall! It's my favourite, and was the only place I could go during that covid time when the concerts were being streamed but not public.

So I am really a one-trick pony! It feels weird to me to turn the aperture to f/8! I try to remember to get a few flower/cat pics occasionally! Widening the horizons! rl:

As a general photographer I am a novice.

Photographers rightly dislike being told "You must have a really good camera!" But I do give credit to my camera: it really is responsible for the high percentage of my pics being technically acceptable, whether they are good pics or not. And I have learned (and continue to) how it's capabilities and mine can work together.