Saying Goodbye to the dSLR

For what it's worth, the dSLR world is getting shook up right now. I'm a retired architectural photographer, and have been using various Canon 5D models for years for my landscape photography pursuits since I sold the business. But in December we started unloading the Canon gear and moving into Sony's new, full-frame sensor a7 line: Penny has the a7, I have the a7r.

These cameras are MUCH more compact than the big Nikons and Canons, and the image quality is every bit as good as their larger brethren. But the reduction in size and weight is just fantastic. I was having a hard time stomaching schlepping around all the heavier gear, but was reluctant to lose the image quality.

Now I've got my cake and I'm eating it too. So, for those of you who are serious about your travel photography, this switch-over is something to consider seriously...

...we started unloading the Canon gear and moving into Sony's new, full-frame sensor a7 line: Penny has the a7, I have the a7r.

 

These cameras are MUCH more compact than the big Nikons and Canons, and the image quality is every bit as good as their larger brethren. But the reduction in size and weight is just fantastic.

True!

I switched over to the Sony Nex line and recently got the A6000 Sony. Extremely impressed by it. Brother (David) Pierce was (and still is, I guess) high on the A6000. Nice reivew on his webpage.

Going to use my NEX7 as a SECOND body to the A6000.

I have thought long and hard about moving to the A7 series but the NEX-7 and now the A6000 have been such solid performers that I couldn't justify the expense of adding new FE lenses. The A7 series certainly has shaken up the industry and while I haven't made the leap yet, I will be strongly considering the FE vs. E series when making my lens choices in the future.

Enjoy your new little friends!

Dave

Pretty sure if someone threw a 5D at me, I'd gladly lug it anywhere and everywhere! :D

Yeah, but if they threw both....:)

Dave

Yeah, but if they threw both....:)

 

 

Dave

I'm a Canon guy, it'd be like turning my back on the family! :D

That said, I'd have a glove on each hand!

Believe me, I was a Canon guy too... between me and Penny we had, when we switched, a 7D, a 5D, a 5D2, the 16-35mm f/2.8L, the 17mm TS/E, the 10-22mm, the 60mm macro, the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS, the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, the 100-400mm L zoom, a pair of 24-105mm f/4L's, a 17-40mm f/4L, a bag of lensbabies, extension tubes, and gawd knows what-all else. My pack weighed 42 lbs, and hers 28 lbs or so...

I traded the old 5D for a brand-new 70D a friend won in a contest. We kept the 70D for the Lensbabies, kept the 10-22mm and one of the 24-105mm's (so we have kit when visitors show up) and all the rest is gone :-)

We're each carrying about a 6-lb pack now and we have everything we really need. It's quite liberating. After a lifetime of schlepping massive gear around (I worked with a view camera) I'm finally free as a bird...

And oh, yeah... I carry around a Lumix LX-5 for a pocket camera :-)

I've been looking at the alpha e-mount cameras, as my a55 is 4 1/2 years old I think. Sony doesn't have a comparable a-mount camera (the a58 is a downgrade, and it was released 2 years old.) Cameras like the a77ii are just too big and too heavy for me to be comfortable with. I could sell my camera and most of the lenses to pay for the new e-mount, but it's a hard decision to make. I know I could use the a-mount lenses with an adapter, but doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of going small?

What lenses do you have for your camera? One of my big interests is macro. I have both a 90mm and a 180mm, and I don't know that I want to part with them.

Right now, the 16-35mm Zeiss, the 24-70mm f/4 Zeiss, and the 70-200mm Sony FE.

Don't be worried about using the adaptor for macro: portability isn't much of an issue there, and when they come out with a true macro FE mount I'll certainly get that. The 24-70 actually focuses very close, surprisingly close, and the sensor and the a7r is SO sharp and crisp that one can crop significantly and still have an excellent image, so that's sort of my "macro stopgap" for now...

Thanks for the info. It looks like you have pretty good coverage with those 3 lenses.

I switched from Sony (a-mount) to Nikon d750. I seriously considered the a7 series. But in the end, while it is an innovative product, I found some of the strengths exaggerated.

1. The d750 still has a far better AF system.

2. Yes, the a7 is smaller. But once you combine it with comparable lenses, the size difference isn't huge. Yes, the a7 with a prime lens is much much smaller than a Nikon d4s with 70-200/2.8. But take a smaller dslr like the d750 with a lens like the 50/1.8g... The size/weight difference just isn't that significant. My favorite lens on the d750 is the 70-200/4. The FE 70-200/4 is nearly the exact same size. So the few ounces you save in the camera body becomes negligible when also considering the lens.

3. The lens lineup completely lacks long telephoto -- nothing over 200, 240 coming soon.

4. The lens lineup doesn't really match my needs--- the limited lineup totally lacks high quality value priced lenses. No cheap 50/1.8. No ultrawide zoom options under $1000. And the "Zeiss" 24-70/4 is a pretty mediocre lens.

The a7 can absolutely save size and weight for some shooters. But depending on your lens preferences, the savings aren't much for everyone. And while I think it can be a great landscape/travel camera, I found the lens lineup holes and AF system aren't ready for someone who likes to shoot some wildlife and sports.

I made the switch from Olympus E5 DSLR to the mirrorless EM-D M1. The new 50-150 mm pro lens can be handheld with little effort even on a moving catamaran. My E5 DSLR 50-150 mm lens was strictly a monopod or tripod shooting profile at distance.

Indeed, the new firmware in the mirrorless cameras is quite an improvement and can add optical-like features without having to buy a new body.

My neck continues to thank me for cutting the weight (camera plus lens) nearly in half for those long shore excursions.

My Olympus E5 and lenses have taken their place on the shelf with my Sony Mavica, Nikon F3 system, and Bronica ETRS system.

I switched from Sony (a-mount) to Nikon d750. I seriously considered the a7 series. But in the end, while it is an innovative product, I found some of the strengths exaggerated.

1. The d750 still has a far better AF system.

2. Yes, the a7 is smaller. But once you combine it with comparable lenses, the size difference isn't huge. Yes, the a7 with a prime lens is much much smaller than a Nikon d4s with 70-200/2.8. But take a smaller dslr like the d750 with a lens like the 50/1.8g... The size/weight difference just isn't that significant. My favorite lens on the d750 is the 70-200/4. The FE 70-200/4 is nearly the exact same size. So the few ounces you save in the camera body becomes negligible when also considering the lens.

3. The lens lineup completely lacks long telephoto -- nothing over 200, 240 coming soon.

4. The lens lineup doesn't really match my needs--- the limited lineup totally lacks high quality value priced lenses. No cheap 50/1.8. No ultrawide zoom options under $1000. And the "Zeiss" 24-70/4 is a pretty mediocre lens.

 

The a7 can absolutely save size and weight for some shooters. But depending on your lens preferences, the savings aren't much for everyone. And while I think it can be a great landscape/travel camera, I found the lens lineup holes and AF system aren't ready for someone who likes to shoot some wildlife and sports.

Sports shooting requires long lenses and fast frame rates but in a travel camera, size and image quality are the prime considerations (for me). The body weight difference between the A7II and the D750 is only 150g but the variance in volume is significant.

Another travel-friendly feature in the A7II is the in-body stabilization. This means less tripod and more sharp images. The 55mm f/1.8 is expensive but it is also one of the sharpest lenses SLRGear has ever tested (the $500-$600 difference between bodies would soften that a bit too). The FE lens lineup is lean for now but with a few adapted primes (all stabilized with focus peaking for manual lenses) and the 16-35 zoom, you can do a lot of quality shooting from a pretty small bag.

I still have my A77 with the 70-200 f/2.8 and a few other lenses for wildlife and sports but the travel kit is all Alpha E-Mount for the foreseeable future. I've always said that the best camera for all situations is two or three cameras! ;)

Dave

The numbers don't tell the whole story, for sure. On paper the differences may not be that substantial, but in the field it all adds up. Think of cycling, where they work their butts off to shave an ounce here, a half-ounce there, because the total energy involved in moving extra mass substantial distances adds up over the course of a ride.

So it is with the cameras: hang one around your neck, and a 6-ounce difference over half a day of sightseeing makes an amazing difference. And this becomes even MORE true if, like me, you tend to hike around with the camera in your hand, so it's swinging at the end of your arm...

The numbers don't tell the whole story

As I don't shoot for a mural or 16x20 size shot, weight is my prime consideration.

If I need a really long range shot, I let my son take it with my old FZ200 or borrow it from him.

On my last cruise, I was very content using 200mm as the "extreme"lens.

Like David Pierce, I use a Sony A6000 and NEX7 with a 12mm, the kit lens and the 70-200mm.

And at the end of the day, my neck and back thanks me!

Sports shooting requires long lenses and fast frame rates but in a travel camera, size and image quality are the prime considerations (for me). The body weight difference between the A7II and the D750 is only 150g but the variance in volume is significant.

 

 

Another travel-friendly feature in the A7II is the in-body stabilization. This means less tripod and more sharp images. The 55mm f/1.8 is expensive but it is also one of the sharpest lenses SLRGear has ever tested (the $500-$600 difference between bodies would soften that a bit too). The FE lens lineup is lean for now but with a few adapted primes (all stabilized with focus peaking for manual lenses) and the 16-35 zoom, you can do a lot of quality shooting from a pretty small bag.

 

I still have my A77 with the 70-200 f/2.8 and a few other lenses for wildlife and sports but the travel kit is all Alpha E-Mount for the foreseeable future. I've always said that the best camera for all situations is two or three cameras! ;)

 

Dave

All very very true as to the many advantages of the A7ii over something like the D750.

But for me, weight is a bigger issue than volume. I like a pretty substantial camera body in my hands, plenty of room for controls without feeling cramped. Though I don't want to be weighed down much.

So it's a balance between size, weight and ergonomics. Taking all into consideration, for me subjectively, it's kind of a flipped coin. Prefer the ergonomics of the D750.. it's only slightly heavier.

Lenses.... The main thing totally lacking is longer telephoto. Some people would miss 2.8 zooms, but I actually rarely use 2.8 zooms. To keep down weight, I often use primes and f4 lenses anyway.

But I have another issue with lenses -- and truthfully, I had similar issues with the A99 -- A-mount not being a new system, it doesn't give me confidence in Sony to address this issue in the long run either -- and that's affordable high quality lens options.

The 55/1.8 may be a spectacular lens, but it's $1,000. My Nikon 50/1.8g is very good, and it's about $220. Sony offers nothing similar.. I can pay $950 for the Zeiss 50/2 or $999 for the Zeiss 55/1.8.

And then let's look at weight once we add the lenses:

The Zeiss 55/1.8 weighs about 100 grams more than the Nikon 50/1.8. So with each lens attached to each camera, the total weight is about the same.

Sure, the Zeiss 55/1.8 may be better, but it costs $800 more and cancels out the weight advantage. And there is no other option for the Sony.

Ultrawide... The Sony 16-35/4 is getting great reviews. It runs $1350 and weighs a bit over 500 grams.

I've been shooting with the Nikon 18-35g -- 385 grams, $750. Now, clearly, it's not as wide as the Sony. It's an "inferior lens" -- but Sony doesn't even give me the choice of such an inferior lens. Truthfully, it's still a very very good lens. It cancels out the weight advantage of the A7ii, and it costs $600 lens.

Now my main walk-around zoom, I've been using the Nikon 24-85/vr/3.5-4.5. A good, but not great lens. And probably comparable to the Sony 24-70/4 which has gotten mediocre reviews. The 2 lenses weigh about the same. So the A7ii would have a slight weight advantage. -- About 1/2 pound total. But the Nikon lens is $600 cheaper.

May as well continue this game with every lens I own: My most expensive lens is my Nikon 70-200/4. Importantly, there are cheaper telephoto zoom options for Nikon. There are no cheaper options for the Sony. The Sony 70-200/4 is $1500 and 850 grams or so. The Nikon is $100 less, at $1400, and weighs about the same. They are both optically superb lenses. With the lens, the A7ii would weigh about 3.1 pounds. With the lens, the Nikon weighs about 3.5 pounds. Not a huge difference in perspective.

Those 4 lenses constitute my current kit. In many cases, they may not be quite as good as the Sony lenses, but Sony doesn't have other cheaper options available. (For their A-mount full frame, they still don't offer anything other than the $2000 Zeiss for ultra wide).

So in total, I lug around less than a 1/2 pound difference. In total, my lenses cost me about $2100 less than comparable Sony focal lengths.

Certainly, mirrorless has advantages -- The m43 mirrorless give a significant size advantage. And the A7 series is pretty remarkable for what it has done. I just find that some people tend to exaggerate the advantages. (And there are dslr fanboys who exaggerate the disadvantages of mirrorless).

Yes, it is more compact. But with less and more expensive lenses. Lacking the total premium lenses available for dslr (2.8 zooms, 1.2-1.4 primes, etc), and also lacking the budget quality lenses you can get for other dslrs (like a typical 50/1.8 for $200 or less).

I'm fair confident I'll switch to mirrorless some day -- I'm pretty confident that some day, we will all be shooting mirrorless. And for many types of shooting, mirrorless is totally ready to replace a dSLR. But not for all types of shooting, not yet.

I still have my A77 with the 70-200 f/2.8 and a few other lenses for wildlife and sports but the travel kit is all Alpha E-Mount for the foreseeable future. I've always said that the best camera for all situations is two or three cameras! ;)

 

Dave

My next cruise is Alaska... so I need to "travel" and do wild-life. When I was weighing the D750 vs the A7, this next trip was on my mind... wanting to go low weight, but also wanting availability of long lenses. While I opted for the D750, I still wasn't sure what to do about a long lens, since I don't want a 3-4 pound lens to lug around. I'm thankful for the recent announcement of a low weight Nikon 300/4.... (I'll pair it with a 1.4 tele to get 420/5.6) The A7 series could really use a lens like it.

FWIW, another thought to add to the equation:

The Sony/Zeiss lenses are all-metal construction and they are absolutely beautiful to look at and to hold. The sheer aesthetics of the whole package (a7r + Zeiss glass) is a joy to me.

I just upgraded to a FF myself in Dec. I looked long and hard at the A7 but ended up with a D610 instead. (upgraded from a D7000). Price was roughly the same, but, I stuck with Nikon because a) I already had some Nikon lenses and really didn't want to have to start all over again getting glass. and b) to be honest the A7 just didn't feel good in my hand. Maybe I was just used to the nikons but when i played with the sony it just didn't feel right in my hand so any weight savings would have been offset by an uncomfortable camera in my hand.

There is also a few other things i like about my nikon better. dual card slots and the fact i went for 3 days around NYC and didn't have to recharge the battery.

But that is why they make different cameras...everybody's taste is different.