what sony to get next? or non-sony?

[4season]

How's about Leica M? More than most, it relies on the skill of the photographer, and while it can be a pain at times, it also rewards. f/8, preset the focus of your lens, get a feel for what's going to be acceptably sharp and what's not (the distance scale and depth of field indicators engraved on the lens barrels are incredibly useful), and practice, practice, practice!

The fastest M models of all are the film cameras because they never "sleep", but the digital ones are okay: The screen blanks out after awhile to save power, but the camera can be left powered up for hours, and I'd recommend leaving it powered on with lens uncapped until you're really done shooting.

 

[absolutic]

How's about Leica M? More than most, it relies on the skill of the photographer, and while it can be a pain at times, it also rewards. f/8, preset the focus of your lens, get a feel for what's going to be acceptably sharp and what's not (the distance scale and depth of field indicators engraved on the lens barrels are incredibly useful), and practice, practice, practice!

The fastest M models of all are the film cameras because they never "sleep", but the digital ones are okay: The screen blanks out after awhile to save power, but the camera can be left powered up for hours, and I'd recommend leaving it powered on with lens uncapped until you're really done shooting.

Never even touched a Leica in my life, unfortunately don't know anyone who shoots one one day maybe

 

[Godfrey]

Reading this thread through again, and looking at your photos, I agree with the notion that you need two cameras: small, light, and portable with decent responsiveness for when you don't want to carry a heavyweight, alongside of which you have the heavyweight with outstanding follow-focus capability for when that's needed.

But. You can't have both with you all the time. You need a third thing: you need to either adjust your expectations for the situation at hand and exploit whichever camera is with you to the best of its abilities. Or you need to accept you need to carry the heavyweight that can do it all all of the time.

I see so many people (including myself, BTW) buying one camera after another looking for the camera that does the job they want. All the time I know that what I really need to do is adjust my expectations, accept what the particular gear I am using does, and exploit it to its potential while avoiding its fallibilities. In that direction lies my creativity and exceptional photographs; in the other direction lies the ever ballooning equipment closet of unappreciated gear.

I've learned to do this somewhat. I have all the equipment I need, and then some. I keep trying to make my expectations make sense..

G

 

[k-hawinkler]

Never even touched a Leica in my life, unfortunately don't know anyone who shoots one one day maybe

Great shots. Of course, Leica M are all manual focus.
But rangefinder focusing is hard to beat for manual focusing I find.
BTW, I think there is a Leica boutique store in LA.

Your 5D3 is a great tool for the kid shot.
I am afraid mirrorless isn't quite there yet.
I wonder though how the 12 MP A7S would do for you?

 

[iiiNelson]

In short I'd try a A77II and a A7s. Lowlight seems to be your biggest headache and the A7s does that better than any other A7 camera I've tried or own. The A77II is said to track very well and it could be great for outdoors and when you need more resolution. The A77II is also sort of small for a DSLR plus you already have compatible lenses.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

A77II is one of the best AFC on the market.

 

[absolutic]

Great shots. Of course, Leica M are all manual focus.

Your 5D3 is a great tool for the kid shot.

funny thing that if you look at EXIF, Canon 6D was used for that kid shot above, not 5DM3, and center point, 6D is a DSLR with inferior AF going back to Canon 40D.

 

[absolutic]

In short I'd try a A77II and a A7s. Lowlight seems to be your biggest headache and the A7s does that better than any other A7 camera I've tried or own. The A77II is said to track very well and it could be great for outdoors and when you need more resolution. The A77II is also sort of small for a DSLR plus you already have compatible lenses.

Yep, I might have to consider trying both of these cameras. Would you say A7s speed of acquisition in Low light is generally fast???

 

[iiiNelson]

Yep, I might have to consider trying both of these cameras. Would you say A7s speed of acquisition in Low light is generally fast???

I own the A77II and A7R. The A7s AF is faster than both and very accurate in low light even when using the f/4 zooms. I don't own one only because 12MP is simply too limiting for me but was allowed to test the AF in the stock room at a local store. If they can get the A7sII in the 16-20 megapixel range with similar performance then it'll be my backup body.

 

[absolutic]

I own the A77II and A7R. The A7s AF is faster than both and very accurate in low light even when using the f/4 zooms. I don't own one only because 12MP is simply too limiting for me but was allowed to test the AF in the stock room at a local store. If they can get the A7sII in the 16-20 megapixel range with similar performance then it'll be my backup body.

Wow, this is a very important information for me. Thank u!

 

[jonoslack]

Have you tried the Leica T? If it does not work as well, atleast you would have used a sleek looking one with a monobody.

Not for state of the art autofocus Vivek . . . and that's ME saying this!

 

[sflxn]

The A7s supposedly has the fastest low light AF of any mirrorless. You can watch some of the tests on youtube. It's not so great in good light, and it shoots low fps, but you have the A6000 for that. Just do a search for A7s vs GH4 On youtube.

 

[jonoslack]

A77II is one of the best AFC on the market.

If you haven't tried one . .. I'd trust Guy on this - it sounds like the best option. I thought the AF on the A7s was fine . . . but not stellar - the E-M1 is really fast, but the tracking isn't that great.

all the best

 

[iiiNelson]

Wow, this is a very important information for me. Thank u!

I should caveat that with the fact that I am not a "machine gun" type of shooter. I'm a single shot shooter and use manual focus most of the time... Even when AF is available.

As far as locking on accurately in low light between near, medium, and far objects in lower light randomly the A7s did that well.

 

[rayyan]

Given your needs, as stated in your original post,
and with the current cam options available in the
marketplace; imho you should:

Get a Dslr.
All other offerings entail a compromise.

But I never compromised in the joy of recording my kids
grow up.

Sure not all images are perfectly focused or superbly
exposed or composed.

But when I look at them now, 25 years later, my memories of those moments
are the best composed, lighted and focused images I made.

 

[biglouis]

Interesting discussion.

I am a father of two sons, now 31 and 25. I can't recall the last time I looked at any of the photographs I took obsessively when they were growing up (all on film of course and therefore in photograph albums stacked neatly on shelves).

Maybe their wives will want to look through them at some point, or possibly their children.

Interestingly, I get a lot of requests from friends and family to take the odd photograph of their children. One or two good photographs seems to be the requirement. My sister actually has those photographs in a photo frame on her wall, which also says something about the actual volume of photography the average non-photographer wants.

Am I a bad person or does it put the whole issue under discussion into perspective?

Just my two cents.

LouisB

PS I get a lot of good keepers from street photographs using manual lenses on my A7/r/s - I'd try that route before more or faster AF cameras.

 

[Vivek]

Not for state of the art autofocus Vivek . . . and that's ME saying this!

Surely, the AF is lot faster than a Leica SL2 + 50/2 Summicron? All my photos of my son (started walking when he was ~10 months old) were on film and manually focused (though good AF cameras and lenses were available 13 years ago).

Interesting discussion.

I am a father of two sons, now 31 and 25. I can't recall the last time I looked at any of the photographs I took obsessively when they were growing up (all on film of course and therefore in photograph albums stacked neatly on shelves).

Maybe their wives will want to look through them at some point, or possibly their children.

Interestingly, I get a lot of requests from friends and family to take the odd photograph of their children. One or two good photographs seems to be the requirement. My sister actually has those photographs in a photo frame on her wall, which also says something about the actual volume of photography the average non-photographer wants.

Am I a bad person or does it put the whole issue under discussion into perspective?

Just my two cents.

LouisB

PS I get a lot of good keepers from street photographs using manual lenses on my A7/r/s - I'd try that route before more or faster AF cameras.

Fully agree with you!

 

[Godfrey]

Surely, the AF is lot faster than a Leica SL2 + 50/2 Summicron? All my photos of my son (started walking when he was ~10 months old) were on film and manually focused (though good AF cameras and lenses were available 13 years ago).

All of my photographs until about 15 years ago were taken with manual focus cameras. About 60-70% of my photographs today are also. I never had any difficulty getting focus right and getting a large majority of in-focus good shots until I went to AF systems.

I find AF useful, but not a panacea. I use it when it's useful. ;-)

G

 

[Annna T]

funny thing that if you look at EXIF, Canon 6D was used for that kid shot above, not 5DM3, and center point, 6D is a DSLR with inferior AF going back to Canon 40D.

I own a Canon 6D and it is very good for AF in low light and really low light. At least when used with SAF on the center point and reframing using your wrist. read the DPreview review. They compared it with the 5DM3 if I remember. Of course it isn't on parr with the other heavier FF Canon bodies when it comes to tracking, but the acquisition time in low light is really good. Other advantage, that body weight only 770gr. Less than the Nikon 610 and ot much more than the A7II. Put on the 40mm F2.8 pancake or other light primes and you can even use it when you are outdoor, away from home.

Still it seems that you need two cameras, like some already said. But for a light ICL. I'd rather look for an MFT camera : with an A7 serie, you gain weight on the body, but much less so with the lenses.

 

[darrellc]

I have a 2 and 5 yr old and have been thru a bunch of cams after leaving a 5D2 I shot with for 3 yrs and started churning cameras. If AF acquisition speed in low light is your primary concern then one of the m4/3 cameras with -4EV AF is a great option. Tracking sucks but single AF is so good you can get a lot of keepers. That is my recommendation currently having A7ii, A7s, GH4, EM1 and GM5 and X100T and having dived back into dslrs for a bit with a d800.

a7s is awesome for kid shooting based on ability to maintain high shutter speeds but AF acquisition speed isn't on par with m4/3. Just today I took some pics of my moving 2 yr old with the FE 35/2.8 (quick to focus) in single shot AFS and when I looked closely they were out of focus and noted that my GH4 would have nailed it.

I remain tempted by the smaller D750 with smaller primes as a stopgap measure until AF performance converges but I don't need more options on what to take each day.