The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Decisions Decisions

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
HI Ben, Tom
Sometimes - usually if I'm out somewhere interesting with a group of people - I like to have a mid range zoom and AF - But I'd rather not make too many compromises beyond that, especially because my best photos are usually both opportunistic and 'instinctive'.

I also like to do close up photography (not really macro) quite often, and the M isn't good at it without an EVF or live view . . . . . . and I find using that compromised as well.

So - if I kept the A7 I'd use it most of the time with the 24-70 zoom - occasionally with the 60 macro elmarit R, and perhaps even the 80-200 f4 R which I like. But I've quite given up the idea of using anything except the M with M lenses (also compromised IMHO).

The picture at the head of the thread shows all the cameras with a zoom attached - which is not a coincidence. Whichever camera I choose will mostly be used with a mid range zoom.
Not sure that the sony solution is that good though for zoom and auto focus. From what I read, outside of good light and how often are you out in good light with friends (the lords of the workplace demand the sacrifice of those hours! :) ), you would probably want a better AF solution?
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Hi Jono.

Sell them all. Buy the two you want the most again.
After all you ain't getting any younger :D

Best.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
...
In that interview on leica rumours Mr Schopf said it would be APSc with a body made in Germany and lenses from Asia? ...
If it's not FF, it doesn't replace the A7+Leica R lenses for me. Having both FT and FF format, and a full kit of lenses for both, I can see little point to putting money into another APS-C format system.

Which is great—I'd much rather NOT go buying another camera at this point. :)

G
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jono,

This is easy: Sell everything except the A7 and your favorite M lenses, get a Metabones adapter for them. Buy an extra A7 and leave your Noct bolted to it. Then if you need something faster, get a D800e and a few of the better N glass to take care of the critical stuff.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Not sure that the sony solution is that good though for zoom and auto focus. From what I read, outside of good light and how often are you out in good light with friends (the lords of the workplace demand the sacrifice of those hours! :) ), you would probably want a better AF solution?
HI There Ben
The A7 does the sort of AF I need without much trouble - low light with friends I'd be using the rangefinder anyway.

Jono,

This is easy: Sell everything except the A7 and your favorite M lenses, get a Metabones adapter for them. Buy an extra A7 and leave your Noct bolted to it. Then if you need something faster, get a D800e and a few of the better N glass to take care of the critical stuff.
Hi Jack
that was why I bought an A7r in the first place, but I was dramatically underwhelmed by M lenses on the Sony - it finally made me realise that it's best to use native lenses on cameras.

Anyway - I wouldn't dream of selling the M camera - because it's my favourite squeeze.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I would say...if absolute IQ is most important=> A7
If you prefer a fast AF, a wide range of lenses (including a compact tele zoom), and to have a weatherproof camera => EM1

Did you see the size of the Sony 70-200?

I still think the A7 doesn't give you much additional benefits if you own and like a M240.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I would say...if absolute IQ is most important=> A7
If you prefer a fast AF, a wide range of lenses (including a compact tele zoom), and to have a weatherproof camera => EM1

Did you see the size of the Sony 70-200?

I still think the A7 doesn't give you much additional benefits if you own and like a M240.
Yes the 70-200 won't be pocketable but it won't be outright ungainly either. It's a f/4 lens so that saves on the amount of glass and the size of the lens.

I think people blow the sizes of some of the FE lens out of proportion to be honest. no they aren't quite as wall as M lenses for the primes but they aren't much larger either. Case in point I remember have to put a size comparison between the FE 55, the 50 Lux ASPH, and the ZM50 Planar on here after some complained about "how large" the 55/1.8 was. Yes the zooms are about and inch or 2 longer than the 55 FE with a slightly larger diameter (2.5-5 cm for you metric types) but the system/ lenses are also lighter than even the M as a whole when comparing primes.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I could almost accuse you of sounding a little bit like-a fanboy.

:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:
:eek:
go for it Jack - :angel::ROTFL: - but in reality I just like shooting with a rangefinder - seeing around the subject and always having the same field of view is something which isn't available elsewhere in digital.

As I said, I've given up trying to use M lenses successfully on other cameras - some work, some don't - stick to native seems best.

As for the D800 - the number of times I've teetered on the brink of the D800 24-120 f4 . . . but it's just a bit big for lugging around the countryside (mind you, I used to lug around the D3 with the 24-70 f2.8 but we've been spoiled by little cameras). . . . . it is a thought though (i.e. keep the M and get a D800)
 

harmsr

Workshop Member
I'm in the same boat.

M240 with .95 Noct basically glued to the body. Complimented by an RX1r that I dearly love.

A full Nikon system D4/Df for studio and sport work. Love it & hate it at the same time. Can't stand the size or weight anymore with newer options, but it's just hard to beat for the kite boarding or concert work.

Sony A7/A7r with the three native FE lenses, & the A 70-200. Love the files. Hate the A7r shutter lag & vibration, which does affect my type of shooting. Hate the camera and menus. I'm still waiting for the Novoflex adapter to try out my Noct. on these bodies.

Fuji X-T1 with 14, 23, 35, 56, 18-55, 55-200. I absolutely love the camera and glass. My idea is to see if it can replace my Nikon kit, plus I just connect with camera and glass. Just shot a Hawaiian music festival last night and it did great. It also seems as if it will keep up with kite boarding in the AF department. Still more trials to do, but I have some hope it will replace the Nikon gear. Both are 16MP which is fine for the end media use of these.

If I were to take Marc's advice on keeping what is enjoyable, both the Nikon and Sony have to go. I'm pretty sure that the Nikon monster is on it's way out the door. I'm still holding out on the Sony, only because of the amazing files.

Can't I just take the Sony sensor and put into the Fuji body????? Please.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
No real advantage between the D800 and A7r. Actually not popular opinion as we can see here. The Sony is better in my mind but I'm not a Nikon fanboy either.:D

Never was even when I owned it. Its nice gets the job done but nothing special to me. I'm not a Sony fanboy either just like shooting it better. I also like its features better and that's why I switched.
 

krugorg

New member
I was going through the same decision (well, 2 out of the 4) this weekend. I took the Sony A7 and 35/2.8 and XT-1 and 23/1.4 out for an afternoon of country road driving and rural landscapes. I like the XT-1 a bit better for handling, shutter sound, and the 23/1.4 lens is beautiful (and little vignetting). After looking at the output on the screen (A7 down-sampled to ~16 mpx, X-trans files processed with Iridient) and a few 8x12 and 12x18 prints, though, decided that the A7 was better for me and the type of stuff I like to photograph (rural landscapes with lots of foliage, branches, grass).
 

jonoslack

Active member
What about the X-Vario as your walkabout zoom?

Is the add-on EVF too awkward?
HI There
I don't really mind the EVF - I had considered it, but it's Emma's . . . . Image quality is definitely right up there, but the AF isn't quite so good.
 

Mike Woods

New member
Jono knows I have some sympathy with his 'predicament' :)

Personally, I use the Leica M240 (previously M9) and the EM5, and I'm in the market to replace the Olympus. I have been with four-thirds and m43 for several years, but the M files have spoiled me. Fully aware not everyone will agree, but from a handling and file processing perspective my own opinion is that the M240 is a step change up from the M9.

And for me that means the gap between my Leica and my Oly has widened...

Godfrey, I have every respect for your opinion, and bear in mind I have neither the latest incarnation of the Only, nor the Sony, but I find this amazing to be honest:

....Examining the files out of the A7 and the E-M1, the file quality on noise/DR/acutance etc is quite comparable right up to ISO 6400, so the output of both processes very similarly and looks consistent when presented together...

My own experience, and the motivation to switch, is that Oly files quickly fall apart under processing. I enjoy gritty files sometimes, but don't expect to see noisy blue skies at base ISO.... which is indeed what I see with the EM5.

Anyway, back on track.... seems to me everything is a compromise. Isn't that why we have all these brand and camera choices?!

Mike
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
...Godfrey, I have every respect for your opinion, and bear in mind I have neither the latest incarnation of the Only, nor the Sony, but I find this amazing to be honest:

....Examining the files out of the A7 and the E-M1, the file quality on noise/DR/acutance etc is quite comparable right up to ISO 6400, so the output of both processes very similarly and looks consistent when presented together...
My own experience, and the motivation to switch, is that Oly files quickly fall apart under processing. I enjoy gritty files sometimes, but don't expect to see noisy blue skies at base ISO.... which is indeed what I see with the EM5. ...
I've never owned an E-M5 to compare to but I don't see any gritty skies with the E-M1 at base ISO. Unless I've underexposed them pretty badly... but there is a potential explanation.

One thing that I did for the E-5 and do now for the E-M1 is back off the input sharpening in Lightroom to a value between 0 and 10, otherwise I get grittiness at low ISO settings where I shouldn't. The LR default value of Sharpening 25 is simply WAY too much for these sensors as a normal rule. Most of my photographs taken with the E-M1 have input sharpening set to between 5 and 11.

I find overly aggressive input sharpening with LR and Camera Raw is the largest cause for noisy FourThirds/Micro-FourThirds results, aside from underexposure. The later generations of FourThirds format sensors have light to no AA filter, and need precious little input sharpening at all.

One of these days in my copious free time I'll run up a couple of examples ... :)

G
 
Top