[Dr.AD]

Originally Posted by Karaboudjan

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.

Thank you very much for your kind words. I am also learning from all the posts here, and this exchange of ideas and thoughts is surely a good leaning experience!

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

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.

Thank you very much for your kind words, Thad!

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.

That is indeed amazing, and those are very challenging conditions for photography.

It feels weird to me to turn the aperture to f/8! I try to remember to get a few flower/cat pics occasionally!

Actually there are many situations where one wants to dial down the aperture to f/8 or even to f/11. In fact, in many situations, one would want to go way down do f/22 etc, but the only problem is there is a lot of diffraction at such narrow apertures and that can become the limit to which you can dial down the aperture.

Some of the situations where one prefers to use narrow aperture, just as examples, are:

• Vast landscapes, where one wants to have the entire scene in tack sharp focus.
• Personally for me, some compositions in car photography, such as three quarter views. For three quarter views, if I use a wide aperture such as f/2.8 or even wider, f/1.8, then I can only get a small part of the car in focus, and the rest of the car will be slightly out of focus. This can be both desired effect or undesired effect, depending on what is the intention and story behind that shot. I do sometimes use f/2.8 for car photos, but most of the times I prefer f/8. With f/8, I can get the whole car in tack sharp focus, while still get a slight defocus on the distant background.
• Long exposure photography where you actually want to reduce the light entering the lens so that you can use longer exposure to compensate for that. Of course, one uses ND filters in such cases, but using narrow aperture surely helps too.
• And a few special cases like trying to capture sunstars or star effects from lights at nights etc. These require a very small aperture too, often to the limit of the diffraction.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

But they are almost all within the same narrow genre (live carnatic music), and within a limited subset of of camera settings

Your photography genre is mostly portraits, and I almost never shoot portraits. I shoot everything else but the portraits. So basically our photography styles are totally opposite, but it is so interesting to read about each other's experiences and preferences, and to learn from those! Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts and experiences in your genre of photography, which is very different from what most of us shoot.

[ampere]

The mirrorless system has truly revolutionalized the size part. But the real question is like every one mentioned the genre of photography and glass that goes with it. If one has been married into the mid-to-high end DSLR ecosystem, then one needs to invest really heavy to match the quality of what they possess in the mirror less world.

I am not sure about Nikon as I have not looked at it. But I looked hard at Sony and Canon The body alone for the likes of R6/R5 series equivalent will push upwards to 2L. Add to it the lens ecosystem. The budget definitely does not seem easy enough to switch. Both Sony and Canon lenses are pricey. Canon does not allow third party lenses. Sony does. On Nikon I would let @AD and other users comment.

If one sticks to APSC format there may be options with good bodies and some lens options in these ecosystems. But then again like I mentioned earlier, it all depends on the need.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Dr.AD

Your photography genre is mostly portraits, and I almost never shoot portraits. I shoot everything else but the portraits. So basically our photography styles are totally opposite, but it is so interesting to read about each other's experiences and preferences, and to learn from those! Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts and experiences in your genre of photography, which is very different from what most of us shoot.

Yes it is. But portraits could be of cars too

There are some venues that pour quite a lot of light onto their stages. One or two actually have pro stage setups. I can then close down the aperture a bit! But I won't use flash. It is one thing for a news guy to walk in, take three pics and walk out, all with flash: it is quite another for someone to be around for the whole concert doing that: it is just annoying!

[Dr.AD]

Originally Posted by ampere

Canon does not allow third party lenses. Sony does. On Nikon I would let @AD and other users comment.

Nikon does allow third-party lenses for its Z mount (i.e. the mount of all Nikon mirrorless cameras - both APSC and full-frame).

However, I do not recommend third party lenses for Nikon Z mount. That is because Nikon's own Z mount lenses are of incredibly high optical quality. Especially the Nikon S-line lenses for Z mount (S-line are the pro grade lenses). Those are so sharp that no third-party lens will come close to that optical quality. So although pricey, best to slowly build up Nikon Z-mount lens collection, which is exactly what I am planning to do over time.

If one sticks to APSC format there may be options with good bodies and some lens options in these ecosystems. But then again like I mentioned earlier, it all depends on the need.

In both Nikon and Sony, the lens mount is same for APSC and full-frame format. So for lens availability, it does not matter. Even on my ASPC DSLR camera, I have used Nikon full-frame lenses and continue to use some of those even now.

Nikon also allows using older F-mount lenses (the DSLR mount before the mirrorless generation) on the newer Z-mount (mirrorless cameras) with a simple FTZ-II adapter which is inexpensive, compact, and easily available. Again, the Z-mount lenses are much sharper and have all around better optical qualities than the older F-mount lenses, and hence it is best to buy the new Z-mount lenses anyways. But if one does have a good collection of older F-mount lenses, then those are all usable with a simple FTZ-II adapter.

Thus, overall, lens availability, quality and compatibility is not at all a problem with Nikon mirrorless system.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by Dr.AD

Nikon does allow third-party lenses for its Z mount (i.e. the mount of all Nikon mirrorless cameras - both APSC and full-frame).

My reason for APSC was probably one may save cash compared to FF.

Using old DSLR lenses probably defeats the purpose of the smaller body. And like I said earlier, the good ML mount lenses in Sony and Canon world are really expensive. How is this in Nikon world? I assume it would be similar?

[Dr.AD]

Originally Posted by ampere

And like I said earlier, the good lenses in Sony and Canon world are really expensive. How is this in Nikon world? I assume it would be similar?

Yes it is similar in Nikon too. I think for lenses or even for the camera bodies, all three major brands - Canon, Sony and Nikon - are almost similar. I don't think that any one brand is cheaper or more expensive than the others. It all depends on lens to lens and camera to camera.

Even in Nikon, the S-line lenses (which are the pro-grade lenses) are very expensive. But they do have some relatively inexpensive non-S lenses. I believe the same is true in Canon, as my Canon friends tell me.

For example. for telephoto lenses, Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S lens costs Rs. 4.7L. And Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S costs a whopping Rs. 14L. On the other hand, they have a relatively inexpensive non-S lens, Nikon Z 18-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR that is a bit affordable at Rs. 1.6L. I used this last lens for a birding trip to Old Magazine House and I loved it.

In shorter focal lengths, the lenses are relatively more affordable. For example, Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8 S, which is an excellent lens with some of the most positive reviews from around the world, and this is an S-line lens, is more affordable at Rs. 64k.

So yes, the Nikon Z lens prices vary from about Rs. 50k to Rs. 14L, depending on the lens. But the good news is that such a large variety exists, so one can pick a lens as per their needs and budget!

And when I checked the Canon RF lens catalogue for India, I see a similar trend. For example, Canon recently launched the RF200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM lens, which has a MRP of Rs. 1.9L. Canon also has RF lenses varying from Rs. 30k to higher than Rs. 10L.

There is a good range of all types of lenses - from relatively affordable to very expensive lenses - in all Sony, Canon and Nikon. One can pick what best suits them.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by ampere

My reason for APSC was probably one may save cash compared to FF.

You can and you would. Weight too

And like I said earlier, the good ML mount lenses in Sony and Canon world are really expensive. How is this in Nikon world? I assume it would be similar?

Sony world: those of us who can't just rush out and buy "GM" lenses (one is currently on my shopping list) have the limited range of Not-G, Not-GM, Sony FE lenses to chose from, or a huge range of mid budget options from the likes of Tamron and Sigma, and low[er] budget options from Samyang, Viltrox, etc.

I love my Samyang 135/1.8. I'm not so keen on my Samyang 35/1.8. I also love my plain-FE Sony 85/1.8.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by Dr.AD

There is a good range of all types of lenses - from relatively affordable to very expensive lenses - in all Sony, Canon and Nikon. One can pick what best suits them.

This was not my point AD. What I was intending to assert is the following:

If say I use an L series on Canon DSLR (16-35 F4 IS L, 70-200F4 IS L or a 100mm 2.8 L macro), its equivalent lens on an RF mount is much more expensive. I think its the same for Sony (and probably Nikon too)

And there is no point using the old L series glass on the new ML body as you lose the size advantage.

A Canon R6 series goes beyond 2.25 and an R5 beyond 3 for the body alone. And all the essential L series glass go beyond a lakh each (I think. Need to re-confirm though). (Same I guess is the case for Sony and Nikon).

Am not saying cheaper options don't exist. I was just merely thinking aloud on what it takes to move from such an aforementioned set-up in DSLR world to an ML world.

I used the Sony A6000 with a 16-50, 35mm and 50m prime. Its a great set-up but I could not find myself to make it my primary setup. Moving to an A7 series also would have meant spending on the body and the other lenses.

Thats why I actually ditched all the 3 and moved to Fuji!

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

You can and you would. Weight too
Sony world: those of us who can't just rush out and buy "GM" lenses (one is currently on my shopping list) have the limited range of Not-G, Not-GM, Sony FE lenses to chose from, or a huge range of mid budget options from the likes of Tamron and Sigma, and low[er] budget options from Samyang, Viltrox, etc.

I love my Samyang 135/1.8. I'm not so keen on my Samyang 35/1.8. I also love my plain-FE Sony 85/1.8.

Like I said I moved to Fuji (An XT-5). I have been using it for some time now and I do see it as my primary set-up. Apart from a good travel criteria, my biggest need was a good travel macro. I could never imagine my Canon 100mm 2.8 IS L ever being replaced. But in the end, I did find a worthy contender in Zeiss! For the combination I find the colours and dynamic range amazing. And more importantly its well within the budget.

[Dr.AD]

Originally Posted by ampere

Canon does not allow third party lenses.

Looks like that is changing now, at least for the Canon APS-C cameras as a start.

Just read this in my news feed:

https://petapixel.com/2024/04/22/can...-mount-lenses/

[ballfry]

Hello knowledgable folks,

Looking to get a FF Compact Camera for the wife.

Shortlisted the Sony A7C with the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8
The idea is to have this be a two lens only setup where the Tamron would be on the body 95% of the time while travelling and we're out and about. We'd get a Sony 200-600 when we go out on Safari(once annually).

What are your thoughts on this system?
With the launch of the A7Cii the price of the A7C has come down to about 1.25L while the Cii costs 1.9L

Is the additional spend worth it on the body?

Thank you

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by ballfry

Looking to get a FF Compact Camera for the wife.

Shortlisted the Sony A7C with the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8
The idea is to have this be a two lens only setup where the Tamron would be on the body 95% of the time while travelling and we're out and about. We'd get a Sony 200-600 when we go out on Safari(once annually).

What are your thoughts on this system?

First thought is that your wife is a lady of considerable muscle! That Tamron is widely praised as a realistic all-rounder, and I love that it is f2 for a useful amount of its range --- but it is over a kilo of lens. And the 200-600 (probably essential for real bird/wildlife work) might as well be a ton as far as I'm concerned.

This whole size/weight/cost thing is the downside of my decision to move from aps-c to ff last year. The 200-600 I can hardly hold; some of the zooms I would want, I could certainly use, but would I be happy carrying one or two of them for any distance?

[ballfry]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

First thought is that your wife is a lady of considerable muscle! That Tamron is widely praised as a realistic all-rounder, and I love that it is f2 for a useful amount of its range --- but it is over a kilo of lens. And the 200-600 (probably essential for real bird/wildlife work) might as well be a ton as far as I'm concerned.

I’ve let her know that weight is a downside of going with this zoom, but she’s never shot with primes and coming straight from iPhone’s to this. So she’s used to tapping a button to go from 24 to 48 to 70mm.

Primes are a no go with her, initially at least.

I know it’s a hell of a jump, but wanted to skip the APS-C and go straight to FF.

Weight aside, what are the thoughts on the body?

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by ballfry

Weight aside, what are the thoughts on the body?

A friend likes his a7c a lot, but, of recent crop he bought a6700.

It is hard to ignore the substantial technology leap with the AI focusing of the a6700/a7c2. Although I did buy a7iv rather than a6700. As I've said, I still have mixed feelings about that shift to FF, even though I am getting lovely pics from my a7iv. I'm a low-light man! I took some lovely pics with my a6500 too, but not so much at ISO 1600, 3200 and above: the a7iv wins there.

I think it is tough not to recommend aps-c for a compact camera setup. You'd end up buying some FF lenses anyway, eg that 200-600 which you are going to need for safari/bird/wildlife.

If thinking of keeping the camera for a long time, consider making that jump to the latest model. The pleasure of ownership will hopefully far outlive the pain of buying! Although... that price difference is a big contribution to the lens budget.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I think it is tough not to recommend aps-c for a compact camera setup. You'd end up buying some FF lenses anyway, eg that 200-600 which you are going to need for safari/bird/wildlife.

If one does not have a wild-life photography in the target-mix, APSC is quite compelling a choice (which is what made me retain the format). And I must I am really happy I stuck to it.

The moment you need big lenses, the question then is: Will the compact camera body hold them well? I have seen the Canon 100-400 RF. Its quite compact. Not sure about the 600mm and the likes. I hope Sony is similar.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by ampere

If one does not have a wild-life photography in the target-mix, APSC is quite compelling a choice (which is what made me retain the format). And I must I am really happy I stuck to it.

Some wildlifers seem to like the extra "reach" of aps-c.

The moment you need big lenses, the question then is: Will the compact camera body hold them well? I have seen the Canon 100-400 RF. Its quite compact. Not sure about the 600mm and the likes. I hope Sony is similar.

I don't know, because I don't have any big lenses, and nor, for my work, do I need them. however, I don't think it makes a difference. Some say, a bigger camera is better balanced with a heavy lens; others say no, it's the total weight that counts, and why add to it.

I say, past a certain size/weight, one is not holding a camera with a lens hanging off it, one is holding a lens with a camera hanging off it! I feel this even with my 135/1.8 and 70-180/2.8