Jump to content
jimmy986

Considering moving to Sony

Recommended Posts

I'd rather stick with one body if possible. For Landscape, street, and bird photography, what body would be the best? And which two, if I need to go with two, would be best for those uses? I assume they will all use the same set of lenses, correct? That way, if I need to travel light somewhere I can take only one body if need be. Sometimes a lighter pack necessitates not taking the ideal kit with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2018 at 10:15 AM, jimmy986 said:

When you say your needs didn't require the 42 mp, where do you think the line gets drawn? I have never had a full frame or anything with more than the 24 of the x-t2. I know the number of mp isn't the only question since both of my cameras are moving to a different brand so it may not be apples to apples.  So I don't necessarily know whether I would see the benefit. Low light AF and AF speed in general could outweigh more MP for sure. And along with low light AF, good performance at high ISO is important.

What makes the a7III more enjoyable for you.

I'm trying to decide two things right now. First, whether the Sony system could better replace my current two system line up of Canon and Fuji. Secondly, if so, which Sony would best serve me. SO it's a little bit of a two parter that I'm working through,

For practical purposes if you are not going to print huge images or crop and print small portions of a large image, one can generally get along just fine with a 24mp camera.  I personally favor the A7III.  It is generally accepted as a stellar all around versatile performer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jaf-Photo
22 hours ago, jimmy986 said:

So the a7III or a7Riii wouldn't be good for bird photography then?

It depends on your expectations, your shooting technique and your level of ambition. Most of the birders I know only use top of the line gear. Then, there are some that take great photos with very old and basic gear.

The important point to make is that AF performance varies a lot between different Sony cameras. So, try before you buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll chime in here because I just switched from XT-2 to a7iii and so far so good.  I am liking the ergomimics and general feel of the camera, AF is really fast even in low light.   I was thinking of upgrading to the xh-1 but didn’t see enough of a difference besides IBIS, went to photocon LA to take some classes and stopped by Sony.  I was blown away with eye AF, the battery life on the camera, and just general feel of it.   My plan right now is to sell my XT-2 and 16-55 f2.8 but keep my X100F.  One of the things that I’m really digging is not taking my eyes away from the viewfinder and adjusting settings, after one night the a7III its starting to feel normal.

I’m trying to figure out lens choices now, I got the kit because I had no other Sony glass.   Picked up the Samyang 35 2.8 because I’m a fan of a small kit, and thinking Sony 85 1.8.   Interested in the Zeiss 24-70 f4 but haven’t read the best things, but who knows.  My Fuji line up was 16 1.4, 23f2, 35f2, 50f2, 56 1.2, and 16-55 f2.8.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up until recently I have run two systems side by side, Canon full frame and Olympus m4/3. The weather here in the UK can be pretty dull at least half the year and I found that full frame for wildlife was more usable than APSC sensor bodies The FF Canon body I was using for the past 4 years was a 1DX , the lens being Sigma 150-600C. An excellent combination but very heavy to carry around all day. The body delivered lovely images but had two major pitfalls for me, size/weight and noisy shutter.

To that end I have sold/part exchanged the Canon body and Sigma lens and bought a Sony A7Riii and the 100-400 GM with the 1.4x teleconverter. As all bird photographers say "you can never get close enough" but the 560mm reach coupled with the 42mpx sensor has satisfied me and enabled me to crop more than I felt able to with the 1DX sensor. The AF is excellent even if it's not up to the standard of the A9, I've had no issues with it.

I've also bought an 85mm lens for portraits and a 35mm for walk around, both used but in mint condition.

I'm still keeping hold of my Olympus m4/3 system for the time being because of the excellent quality of the lenses, I'm still not that happy with the sensor especially in certain lighting conditions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mack100 said:

Up until recently I have run two systems side by side, Canon full frame and Olympus m4/3. The weather here in the UK can be pretty dull at least half the year and I found that full frame for wildlife was more usable than APSC sensor bodies The FF Canon body I was using for the past 4 years was a 1DX , the lens being Sigma 150-600C. An excellent combination but very heavy to carry around all day. The body delivered lovely images but had two major pitfalls for me, size/weight and noisy shutter.

To that end I have sold/part exchanged the Canon body and Sigma lens and bought a Sony A7Riii and the 100-400 GM with the 1.4x teleconverter. As all bird photographers say "you can never get close enough" but the 560mm reach coupled with the 42mpx sensor has satisfied me and enabled me to crop more than I felt able to with the 1DX sensor. The AF is excellent even if it's not up to the standard of the A9, I've had no issues with it.

I've also bought an 85mm lens for portraits and a 35mm for walk around, both used but in mint condition.

I'm still keeping hold of my Olympus m4/3 system for the time being because of the excellent quality of the lenses, I'm still not that happy with the sensor especially in certain lighting conditions.

 

It seems like you did basically what I am considering. I think I am leaning towards the a7R III.  That would definitely give me a larger sensor for blowing up landscapes. Do you find the AF is good in low light, for street photography for example in poor lighting or later in the evening?

To anyone else as well, the 100-400 and 1.4 tele seems like the obvious choice for birding unless I'm wrong. What is a good lens to get for landscapes? Since landscapes don't really need AF, should I go with a cheaper manual focus lens? Or should I go for a zoom for more versatility? All of my fuji lenses are primes but I am thinking moving to some zooms would help me with traveling. I vacation fairly regularly and it is a big part of my photography.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that the AF is astonishingly good in low light. Since my last post I’ve decided to bite the bullet and go over almost completely to Sony as I’m never going to be able to change the charectaristics of the Olympus sensor that I dislike.

To that end I’m going to part exchange some Olympus lenses for the Sony 24-105 f4 and the 16-35 f4.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm now convinced megapixel differences are not linear.   While a 24mp image is mathematically double that of a 12mp image I don't believe your eye will perceive it was twice as good, probably not even close.  Your computer will sure choke on the 42mp files though!  

I briefly had a full frame 24mp camera here and compared shots from it with a very unlikely competitor and they were surprisingly close in overall quality.  My Canon 7D with cheap glass should not have even been allowed in the same room with the 24mp full frame with good glass yet the final images were much closer than I thought they should have been.  Maybe my monitor dumbed them both down?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Optiq said:

I'm now convinced megapixel differences are not linear.   While a 24mp image is mathematically double that of a 12mp image I don't believe your eye will perceive it was twice as good, probably not even close.  Your computer will sure choke on the 42mp files though!  

I briefly had a full frame 24mp camera here and compared shots from it with a very unlikely competitor and they were surprisingly close in overall quality.  My Canon 7D with cheap glass should not have even been allowed in the same room with the 24mp full frame with good glass yet the final images were much closer than I thought they should have been.  Maybe my monitor dumbed them both down?  

I feel like I notice a difference in my Sony files. BUT, that is a difference of 21 MP to 42 MP. What you are talking about seems to be 21 MP to 24 MP, unless you mean 42 MP. But, I already like the Sony files better than my Canon or Fuji.

But you are definitely right that MP count is not the only issue. Some sensors are simply better than others regardless of the count. But, I have always heard Sony has amazing sensors so coupled with the MP count it should be a pretty good combo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Optiq said:

I'm now convinced megapixel differences are not linear.   While a 24mp image is mathematically double that of a 12mp image I don't believe your eye will perceive it was twice as good, probably not even close.

You need to realize, that the total MP value is the product of horizontal times vertical resolution.

If you want perceived double resolution, this would require both double horizontal plus double vertical resolution, totaling a quadruple resolution.

A double MP value only gives you a Squareroot(2) increase, something like the 1.4-fold. Not a 2-fold.

Edited by Chrissie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have pretty much the opposite opinion as Optiq.

I got a 7RM3 completely by surprise. I had a 7 and planned to wait for the 7M3 to upgrade but friend felt flush on Christmas Day after making 10 bitcoins helping a couple of Swiss guys with an ICO (that later turned out to be a scam). On impulse he bought me 7RM3. My attitude was previously "I don't want to deal with 44 MB RAWs (and those are compressed, ffs!). And what will I do with 8000 pixels across?"

After using it for 6 months, it turns out that answer is: the ability to crop is far more important to me than I expected. It allows new ways of working. It's very useful. It turns out to be a big deal.

I was also wrong about the big files. With a fast card reader it's really no problem at all. I copy files from each shoot to a folder on a 3 TB internal HDD and import them with drag and drop from the Finder to Capture One Pro. I don't usually bother deleting any, instead I mark the good ones with 5 stars and filter out the rest. The disk is automatically backed up to two different locations and the developed jpegs to an additional two. The 5895 RAWs since Jan 1 2018 add up to 192 GB or 6.4% of the 3 TB capacity of the HDD so it will be a few years before it is full. No big deal.

Now, I don't know if you will find this ability to crop as valuable as I do. The point of my story is that I didn't understand the value of 42.4 MP on a 7RM3 (or 7RM2 for that matter, I imagine) until I had quite a lot of experience with it. My strong opinion about it before was ignorant.

Edited by thefsb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...