Mirrorless vs DSLR

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by Dark Orange, Jul 30, 2020.

?

Mirrorless, or DSLR?

  1. I primarily shoot DSLR

    16 vote(s)
    25.8%
  2. I primarily shoot Mirrorless

    41 vote(s)
    66.1%
  3. I use both equally

    3 vote(s)
    4.8%
  4. I use a format you've probably never heard of.

    2 vote(s)
    3.2%
  1. Deftone2k

    Deftone2k In the Darkroom

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2002
    Messages:
    15,856
    Location:
    Sydney
    What was that though? I think the cheapest I saw the A73 last year was just under $2100 brand new which is a steal..
     
  2. Psyentist

    Psyentist Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    408
    That's not bad compared to typical retail, but it's still too much for a body for enthusiast use. Pretty sure I got the original a7R for like $1800 including a Metabones adaptor back in the day. Bodies are so damn expensive now. Doesn't seem worth upgrading to me.
     
  3. Xang

    Xang Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,091
    I think anything around $2k is good value for a reasonable FF camera. The A7iii definitely punches above its weight in results. There are plenty of good bodies at lower prices than that (although I'm not a fan of Sony's interchangeable APS-C system). I think Fuji is the place to be for more price-sensitive buyers.
     
  4. lonewolf1983

    lonewolf1983 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    4,678
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    Market as a whole has gone up, Sony can still be ok if you buy at the right time.
    Got my A7iii for $2100 due to 20% off sale and then $400 cashback
     
  5. Athiril

    Athiril Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,115
    Location:
    Tsumagoi-Mura, Japan
    The A7iii got as low as 1800 new in December on special iirc, and recently went as high as 3600.
     
  6. Frozen_Hell

    Frozen_Hell Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,018
    Location:
    Cairns
    Its interesting that a few landscape photographers I follow on Youtube have recently done similar to what I did last last year and for similar reasons. Thomas Heaton has started using Fujifilm X series gear predominantly and in the last couple of weeks I also saw Mark Denney has done the same. Interestingly mainly for the reason of lighter weight.

    Mark Denney's video on his reasons for changing from Sony is here:

    I will say, one of the other things as someone who shoots on tripod most of the time - having the controls for ISO, shutter speed etc. on a marked dial on the top of the camera does make it easier than diving into menus or using key combos etc. ISO in particular, easy to see I'm not doing something stupid like shooting at ISO6400 when I actually want to be at ISO100.
     
  7. theSeekerr

    theSeekerr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    3,614
    Location:
    Broadview SA
    Is there a really great landscape lens for Fuji X? I've been considering buying into a new system primarily for hiking / landscapes - the M43 ultrawide options have always seemed underwhelming and I'm reluctant to spend more money on that system when it looks increasingly like there's never going to be great new stills-focused body...
     
  8. Pbx_Jnr

    Pbx_Jnr Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,839
    Location:
    Brisbane, QLD
    I switched over from Canon to Sony a few years ago and haven't looked back. All the tech in my A7RIII and even my older A7II have made it so much easier to achieve shots that I probably would have struggled with my old 5D3. I kept my 5D3 almost exclusively because I still hadn't bought a replacement for my aging Tammy 150-600mm, but that's now changed with me getting a 200-600mm for an early birthday present back in May. I still haven't quite brought myself to selling off the Canon gear just yet.... so nostalgic lol.
     
  9. Derfman

    Derfman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2014
    Messages:
    98
    Location:
    Sydney
    Im still 100% Canon DSLR, for action, wildlife and underwater, and whatever else.

    I am looking at the R5, but with no native RF big whites out im in no hurry, new underwater housing will be out soon too...

    the A9ii and sony 400mm f2.8 look like a great combo, but the serious $ required is hard to justify with no international travel on the horizon, and cheaper old EF lenses...
     
    die_piggy likes this.
  10. Frozen_Hell

    Frozen_Hell Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,018
    Location:
    Cairns
    Presuming you mean wide-angle, because any lens can be used for landscapes. ;)

    The XF 10-24mm, I did have the F1.4 16mm but found it not wide enough at times and I really wasn't shooting it at F1.4. I don't have much in the mid-range of focal lengths, but when I did before I wasn't shooting those focal lengths really anyway. I have two primes (60mm macro and 27mm pancake) and two zooms (10-24mm and 100-400mm).

    I will say the thing that has impressed me with the X-T3 is that it seems to focus on the right thing in a crowded scene way more consistently than any Nikon I've ever owned. I shot a honey-eater plucking fur from the back of a browsing wombat through the trees late last year with the 55-200mm and it just kept nailing focus - whereas with any of the Nikons I've had, it has hunted a bit. I was actually shooting on and off today with the 100-400mm mounted a little wattlebird through a dirty window in my back garden, with a fly screen that was darting around amongst a tree and behind branches and leaves etc. and the XT-3 was focusing on the bird every time and not hunting around at all.
     
  11. theSeekerr

    theSeekerr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    3,614
    Location:
    Broadview SA
    Y'know, I considered fixing that and didn't bother....yes, I meant a wide-to-ultrawide. Something wider than 24mm FF equiv, and generally I prefer primes. The Fuji 14/2.8 looks pretty nice actually.

    One of the reasons I'm so underwhelmed by the M43 options is that there's nothing wider than 12mm (24mm equiv) in a prime designed for the m43 sensor size. I don't want heaps wider....10, 10.5mm would be great. Yes, there's the Samyang/Rokinon 10mm but that weighs 600g because it's a FF lens with an m43 mount on it. The Oly 7-14 looks FINE but I just don't want a zoom...
     
  12. Hater

    Hater Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Messages:
    5,475
    Location:
    Canberra
    SLR Magic do an 8mm F4, no idea if it's any good
     
  13. theSeekerr

    theSeekerr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    3,614
    Location:
    Broadview SA
    I had also forgotten about the Laowa 7.5 and 9mm....which are actually kinda interesting.
     
  14. Hater

    Hater Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Messages:
    5,475
    Location:
    Canberra
    If you’ve got a body to use I can send you a Rokinon 12mm to play with. I never use it as it has a stupid filter size, not buying a whole set of new ND’s for it

    Should just get a matte box but eh
     
  15. OP
    OP
    Dark Orange

    Dark Orange Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,878
    Another benefit of mirrorless - one single ND filter for every lens you own that fits in your pocket:

    https://stcoptics.com/en/clip_filter/
     
  16. lonewolf1983

    lonewolf1983 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    4,678
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    the 10-24mm is nice if you want a zoom, i took a lot of nice wide angle images with it - also take a screw in filter too vs the 8-16mm.
    Time again i'd probably go the samyang 12mm, or the laowa 9mm though.

    can certainly understand landscapers going to fuji, lens + body combos are a lot smaller and lighter and fixed at low ISO on a tripod means the low light performance isnt an issue.

    Ironically i switched from fuji > Sony :lol:
     
  17. theSeekerr

    theSeekerr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    3,614
    Location:
    Broadview SA
    Huh, never seen that before. Neat.
     
  18. mtma

    mtma Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    5,806
    Though you need to be anal about how they're stored as inclusions on that side of the lens tend to stuff up the images in the most obvious ways.
     
  19. Athiril

    Athiril Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,115
    Location:
    Tsumagoi-Mura, Japan
    A lot of ultrawides are underwhelming, perception is everything, but in reality, I havent seen one that doesnt need to be stopped down to f/11 have to have decent corners. Not a big deal if the corner is the sky or some plain area where you cant notice it, but the corners need to be at least good enough in my opinion that they dont look out of focus when viewing the whole image at once. A four shot pano with 50% overlap can help that as then you can crop it, and the corners can be made with a closer to center portion of the lens. I certainly dont like have to resort to something like that on an expensive lens though.
     
  20. Frozen_Hell

    Frozen_Hell Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,018
    Location:
    Cairns
    I will say that wide-angle lenses on every format are always compromised in some manner, its like all gear - you just need to understand its limitations and work around it, whether that is unsharp corners wide-open, wavy distortion or vignetting. I've owned a lot of different ones with zooms and primes across both Nikon mount and Fujifilm mount. I will say the single best wide-angle lens I've owned in terms of optical quality was a Zeiss 15mm on F-mount.

    I would say that generally you don't use wide-angle lenses for stitched panos, you usually use something more mid-range, e.g. 35mm-50mm or longer, so that you don't get the mega perspective distortion (unless that is what you're going for).
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: