Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, bgreywolf said:

I'm not saying adapters are bad, per se.  I'm just saying, in my specific case, I'm in the lucky position of being able to keep a complete system for the old gear (two systems, if you count film and digital separately), and buy into a new system without needing to pinch too many pennies or free up any space.  

I got a lot of Nikon lenses from relatives who bought Z-series Nikon mirrorless, used the adapters, and then decided the native lens made more sense to them.  Maybe if the D610 dies I'd replace it with an adapter, but there's no reason to expect that.

I did just chuckle at the thought of adapting a reversed 55mm F/3.5 Micro-Nikkor and extension bellows to a mirrorless camera. 

An adapter was just a thought to avoid having your gear gather dust:

Quote

my Nikon collection is sentiment and inertia, but I'm not anchored to it.  It can sit on a shelf while I shoot with a Sony.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being there, done that.

I also have some Nikon stuff, since I started with a FM2 back in the '80s, and I have been adding lenses and other stuff over time. Given the fact that Nikon is discontinuing SRLs, I bought a D850 taking the opportunity of a big rebate and trading my D700 in. I still use it, when weight and size are not an issue.

Some years ago I had major surgery and for a few months I was forbidden to carry weight, so I looked for something lighter and better than the point and shoot camera that I use when on business travel. I ended buying a 6000 with the kit combo: 16-50 and 55-210 and using it when I want to travel light. Perfectly happy with the choice. Over time I added the 16-70 and the 18-135 and lately the 10-18. All the three lenses have been bought exploiting offers and discounts. Now I end using these two lenses the most because I learnt the hard way that swapping lenses in the field with a mirrorless camera is not a good idea, dust easily ends on the sensor and dots that have to be removed with photo editing. Over 20 years, I have cleaned my Nikon DRLs sensors twice, with the Sony it needs a cleaning every few months. I have learnt to do it myself, the Nikons were professionally cleaned. The 6000 lacks IBS but for me it is not an issue, when shooting in good lighting conditions sometimes I disable the OSS on lenses.

Since then, the Sony has been the ideal choice when I want to travel light, e.g. on weekend trips or when I am travelling in a group. I accept some compromise in quality in exchange for convenience and lightness. I also like the quietness, it allows me to shoot in churches or in other places where silence is a value. For this reason I do not plan to add further equipment to the Sony system.  The two systems have become perfectly complementary. Should Nikon had made something similar to a 6000 using F-mount lenses, I would had stayed with Nikon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Phormula said:

I also like the quietness, it allows me to shoot in churches or in other places where silence is a value. For this reason I do not plan to add further equipment to the Sony system. 

As far as I know the A6000 doesn't have an electronic 2nd curtain, so it can't shoot in total silence. You need a newer generation (A6300/A6500 or later) for that. Otherwise a totally valid point: on occasion I'm so glad these cameras can shoot in utter silence. I've captured my grandmothers funeral on request because part of the family could not attend it. I've captured my stepsisters wedding ceremony up close. I can't ever immagine doing those occasions with a noisy *click-clack* DSLR and it makes those cameras feel ancient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, the 6000 does not have the electronic 2nd curtain, the 6300 has.

However, if all the sounds are disabled, the curtain noise is much lower than the whole curtain + mirror mechanism of a reflex camera, which can be annoying in some situations. It is the same reason why in the old film days, rangefinder cameras like the Leica were popular for street and candid photographers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Phormula said:

Now I end using these two lenses the most because I learnt the hard way that swapping lenses in the field with a mirrorless camera is not a good idea, dust easily ends on the sensor and dots that have to be removed with photo editing. Over 20 years, I have cleaned my Nikon DRLs sensors twice, with the Sony it needs a cleaning every few months. I have learnt to do it myself, the Nikons were professionally cleaned.

I've heard complaints before about people having trouble with dust on their sensors, and even complaints that Sony mirrorless are worse than others. I have never experienced this, and I shoot in a very filthy setting, air-wise. I clean my own sensors and do them once each year at the start of the season and that's it. Typically I find a spot or two, but nothing like what people describe. One thing I do once a month is to hit the sensor with a jet blower when prepping for a shoot. I try not to change lenses much, but I still have to probably 8-10 times during the shoots. I always follow good practice by holding the camera face down when there's no lens mounted and having everything ready to go when changing in order to reduce the amount of time the sensor is exposed. 

I have been afraid to use the shutter close on shutdown feature because I spend a lot of time in the bright sun and have been concerned about Sony's pop-up warning. I decided to try it this year to see if it makes any difference, but I really wasn't getting that much dust to begin with. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phormula and Pieter, the Fuji X100T also has the dual electronic/mechanical shutter with a quiet mode, and being rid of the mirror "clack" makes a giant difference in sound over a dSLR.  The Fuji on full quiet mode is essentially inaudible.

And I would probably be leaning very hard on a Nikon mirrorless setup if it natively used the F lenses.  At the same time, I appreciate the significant benefit that removing the mirror provides in terms of lens design, so I don't begrudge Nikon the move to a new mount.  

Cameratose, I also haven't had huge dust issues on my dSLRs, although I did start cleaning my own on the early (non-vibrating-cleaning) cameras.  I appreciate the self-cleaning enough that I decided it was a must in anything I get for the gf; I don't imagine she'll be thinking about sensor cleaning until it's too late (and hopefully I'll be doing it on the regular anyway).

The ones with the self-cleaning never really seem to be dirty, although I do a cleaning of any camera gear I might use before holidays (and, being, as they say, "of an era", I also polish the silver and iron the tablecloths and dust all the light fixtures...); that might be enough to rid me of most of the problem before it builds up enough to be noticeable.

I'm curious about the shutter close warning?  I'm used to cameras that require a conscious decision to leave it open, so that's a significant departure from what I'm used to.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Cameratose said:

I have been afraid to use the shutter close on shutdown feature because I spend a lot of time in the bright sun and have been concerned about Sony's pop-up warning. I decided to try it this year to see if it makes any difference, but I really wasn't getting that much dust to begin with. 

That feature is really just a marketing gimmick. Canon implemented it so Sony had to follow suit as there was a big outcry over why Sony was lagging behind. There is good reason why the feature is disabled by default and the warning message pops up when you try to enable it: the delicate shutter mechanism is much more fragile than the protective sensor cover glass. It's not designed to protect anything. You really don't want muck or goo to get stuck on it. And where do you think the dust particles go that were stuck to the shutter blades when the shutter actuates? Right, they float right back into the sensor chamber onto your then exposed sensor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pieter said:

That feature is really just a marketing gimmick. Canon implemented it so Sony had to follow suit as there was a big outcry over why Sony was lagging behind. There is good reason why the feature is disabled by default and the warning message pops up when you try to enable it: the delicate shutter mechanism is much more fragile than the protective sensor cover glass. It's not designed to protect anything. You really don't want muck or goo to get stuck on it. And where do you think the dust particles go that were stuck to the shutter blades when the shutter actuates? Right, they float right back into the sensor chamber onto your then exposed sensor.

LOL. I have made the exact same argument before, to the extent that you could've copied and pasted my text, including every aspect from the fragility to the dust coming off the blades. But, I'm near the end of the season with only another month to go, so I'll continue in the interest of science. I am interested to see if the dust situation changes for the worse.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Cameratose said:

I've heard complaints before about people having trouble with dust on their sensors, and even complaints that Sony mirrorless are worse than others. I have never experienced this, and I shoot in a very filthy setting, air-wise.

Quick answer... it depends.

Almost all of my pictures are landscapes and a significant part of them are taken with A mode at /f 11 or higher to maximise depth of field with wide angle lenses. Except when in low light or when I want to isolate a subject, I rarely shoot below /f 8. At narrow apertures, sensor dust becomes more evident, especially when spots fall into areas such as the sky. By contrast, last February I was speaking about dust with an event shooter, using Nikon mirrorless cameras and he said the opposite, but almost all of his pictures are taken with professional /f 2.8 lenses shoot wide open. Plus, the busy background helps masking. When I asked him to take a picture of a white wall at /f 22, all the spots came out.

I also take care when switching lenses, camera always pointed down and switched off (the latter should be the norm, but when in a hurry because the subject is disappearing, it could happen to forget to switch it off)

The advantage of mirrorless is that they can be easily cleaned, the sensor is more accessible than in a DSLR. The worst thing that happened to me was a Canon G1X Mark I. It was a high end point and shoot camera with a relatively large sensor and a fixed mounted lens. It was a perfect business travel camera, until dust found its way on the sensor, most likely by sucking during on-off switching and zoom operation. To clean the sensor, the whole affair had to be dismantled, the cleaning bill was largely exceeding the value of the camera, so I had to trash it (sold for parts).

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cameratose said:

I'll continue in the interest of science. I am interested to see if the dust situation changes for the worse.  

Keep us posted on your findings! If the dust situation changes for the better, there's still the risk left of damaging the shutter mechanism...

I guess the Nikon Z9 shows us the future in this regard: it doesn't have a mechanical shutter but it does feature a dedicated and designed for purpose sensor shield mechanism.

Edited by Pieter
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, bgreywolf said:

Cameratose, I also haven't had huge dust issues on my dSLRs, although I did start cleaning my own on the early (non-vibrating-cleaning) cameras.  I appreciate the self-cleaning enough that I decided it was a must in anything I get for the gf;

Couple things: The sensors in your DSLRs are protected from dust by mirrors. In mirrorless the sensor is right out in the open. Expect it to be worse, just because. Following good lens changing practice is important.

Second, the dry shake method works some, but it won't shake off anything that isn't already loose. I rarely use it because I've never found it to be very effective. I do use it to get anything loose off before a wet clean. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Phormula said:

Almost all of my pictures are landscapes and a significant part of them are taken with A mode at /f 11 or higher to maximise depth of field with wide angle lenses. Except when in low light or when I want to isolate a subject, I rarely shoot below /f 8. At narrow apertures, sensor dust becomes more evident, especially when spots fall into areas such as the sky. By contrast, last February I was speaking about dust with an event shooter, using Nikon mirrorless cameras and he said the opposite, but almost all of his pictures are taken with professional /f 2.8 lenses shoot wide open. Plus, the busy background helps masking. When I asked him to take a picture of a white wall at /f 22, all the spots came out.

 

I tend to shoot more middle of the range unless light is an issue, then I adjust accordingly. I'm not a bokeh person and don't care much, I'd rather have the depth of f/4-8 or so. Given that, I can't really see dust unless go looking for it, so I check mine midway through the season with white paper or blue sky and stopped down. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2024 at 11:59 AM, bgreywolf said:

I did just chuckle at the thought of adapting a reversed 55mm F/3.5 Micro-Nikkor and extension bellows to a mirrorless camera. 

If you do any macro work, you're going to be using manual-focusing mode -- even when using an AF camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, XKAES said:

If you do any macro work, you're going to be using manual-focusing mode -- even when using an AF camera.

Macro work (product photos for my artistic friends who actually HAVE talent) is the whole reason I got the D610, so I can meter with my ancient Micro-Nikkors and use i-TTL flash to evenly light small pieces of jewelry and so on. 

Most of them have had enough success that they've gotten their own setups (due to their creative talents, not my photographic prowess) so I can't point to any immediate examples, but there may still be a few on various Etsy stores.

The goal here is not to replace the Nikon stuff; it's to get my girlfriend into a system she's comfortable with every day; and to be able to share a hobby with her.  I'll still use the Nikon until I get a second Sony body; and I'll still use it when I want to use a particular lens or accessory (or film!) that isn't native to the Sony gear.  The Sony will be a success if she uses it as much as she says she wants to; and a success again if we get to the point where "but we don't have one of those in our Sony gear..." is an excuse to buy more stuff. :D

I'm at sea for a couple more weeks.  She's got a stack of my old photo books (mostly Ansel Adams, plus a couple digital photo books I ordered for her online) to flip through in the meantime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
On 9/19/2024 at 3:14 AM, Pieter said:

Keep us posted on your findings! If the dust situation changes for the better, there's still the risk left of damaging the shutter mechanism...

Following up as requested. I've been asked to shoot an awards banquet next weekend. Normally I'd go a few more months until just before the beginning of the season to clean my sensors, but the banquet is important so I did a sensor check, cleaned lenses, etc. 

Now to be clear this wasn't very scientific. Last year I left the shutter open on power down, but rarely changed lenses in the field opting to use two bodies instead. This year, I had the shutter close when powered down, but rather than carry two cameras all the time I changed lenses...a lot. The results were... 🤷

For the A1, there was a small amount of dust on the sensors in both cases, very similar results I'd say. Last season I had to use a wet swab to remove whatever gunk wouldn't come off after the internal cleaning/jet blower/dry swab. This year, I was able to stop at the dry swab, no wet swab needed.

The A7 IV was incredibly clean. Admittedly it saw little use at the track last year, for that matter all year, it needed nothing after an internal shake and bake and jet blower. For that matter it may not have needed anything at all, but I didn't check before I did the internal cleaning.

I think the A7 IV results can be discounted. Not enough use to get any kind of comparison. The A1 is a different story. The amount of dust with shutter open or closed was very similar, the difference was in gunk. It occurs to me that whenever these discussions are held they're always about dust. That's probably fair because it's what most people would encounter. In my case there are a couple of airborne liquids that could settles on my sensor, the most likely being track glue and unburned fuel. The problem with those is that I never, ever remove a lens when either one is present. Absent those, I have no idea.

From a dust standpoint, I don't see any difference. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cameratose said:

In my case there are a couple of airborne liquids that could settles on my sensor, the most likely being track glue and unburned fuel.

These specifically I'd much rather get on my sensor than on my shutter blades. On the sensor this can be easily cleaned with a wet swab. On the shutter blades it would be there forever, possibly causing them to get stuck after some time.

Thanks for the recap!

Edited by Pieter
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pieter said:

These specifically I'd much rather get on my sensor than on my shutter blades. On the sensor this can be easily cleaned with a wet swab. On the shutter blades it would be there forever, possibly causing them to get stuck after some time.

Thanks for the recap!

My thoughts exactly. However, there's still missing data:

Shutter left open

Change lenses often

Would that result in an insane amount of dust? I read posts all the time about how bad Sony sensors are in gathering dust. I've never experienced it myself, and it's probably because of the extra measure I take. Would I put myself in a situation that means regular cleanings? 

I suppose I could check the shutter under a bright light for spots or anything foreign that may have gotten to it. 

Edited by Cameratose
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...