Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

21 - 40 of 97 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
689 Posts
Yep, horses for courses. If i'm riding something properly technical like TWE or our local Rio en Medio trail, I'm carrying something small and light. Big glass can be a big PIA.

OTH, also considering a A7R III with a few primes -- FF and hi-res with fast glass. Now that could work! But the entry price is pretty ridiculous.

Rent if you can, sometimes ergonimics play a bigger role than most like to admit as well.
 

·
saddlemeat
Joined
·
3,873 Posts
Awesome comments above, I too am looking to dip a toe into FX waters. I'll start with a used A7xx that can clunk around the mountain with me, nothing too nice, which adapts to my crop lenses, then start acquiring some primes. I like 'em wide and it's all about the lenses. I'm a print maker too, no such thing as too big of a file in my world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,743 Posts
I bought the Sony A6600 yesterday, a step up from my RX100IV, which has been brilliant once you navigate Sony's horrible menus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
The Sony A73 is an amazing camera. I have carried it at some very important events ,for me, with a 50 F1.8 and have not regretted it. You figure out how to work around the menu's. The Nikon sits, unless the lights come on and they start passing a football.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
729 Posts
The thing about using adaptors:
They change the number of mm the glass is from the sensor.
If a lens was made to be 7 millimeters from the sensor or mirror and you use an adaptor it might now be 11 or 13 mm from the sensor. people argue about the pros and cons for hours on end. Cons do exist with a non native lens.
I recently learned that a crop lens only uses 44% of a full frame sensor. Few threads down this page is where I learned that.
In for a penny in for a pound. Must be an old saying from waaaay back when a penny could buy something.

“the best camera is the one you have with you,” and we truly believe that.
https://www.creativelive.com/blog/using-best-cameras-for-night-photography-settings/
If I google best night camera, Nikon pops up most everywhere.


Click here for a while
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,618 Posts
That’s true about adapters, to a point.

One of the reasons that the new Nikon Z mount is interesting, to native flange distance is very short. This means you can adapt almost anything hung to it, as there is enough space for the adapter, and make sure the adapted lens stays at its native “lens to sensor” distance. Sony’s full frame mount is somewhat similar (just not as much space for adapters).

And full frame sensors are designed around a known standard size (same as a 35mm piece of film). But crop sensors aren’t the same way, so each brand is going to be a slightly different percentage of full frames sensor size. Offhand I recall that cannons crop sensors are smaller than nikons (1.6 crop factor vs 1.5). I can’t recall any others at the moment, but they were all in the same basic area of 40-50% of the size.

And again, it’s primarily sensor size that determines lens sizes (at a given aperture/focal length). So mirrorless or DSLR, if you’re carrying a bunch of lenses, the overall difference in kit weight isn’t huge usually. The actual camera itself comes down to what is most important to you, as both mirrorless and dslrs have their pros and cons (just like bikes :)).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
A73 and A7R3

I'm mirrorless curious, but I'll never go back to crop.

I may only shoot a ~dozen of these per year, but you simply don't get this kind of detail with crop, regardless of lens.
A73 Balloon shot at 5000 ISO, A7R Sunrise at 50 ISO. Both shot with the same lens, Sony GM 16-35 f 2.8.
Just backs up what you said Mikesee.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
729 Posts
Pale in comparison to the above star photos.

rx100v
A 1 inch sensor (13 x 12 mm), does not do well at a high iso or capture a lot of details at night.

I seldom turn it up past iso 250.

Some things just work better than others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
729 Posts
That’s true about adapters, to a point.

One of the reasons that the new Nikon Z mount is interesting, to native flange distance is very short. This means you can adapt almost anything hung to it, as there is enough space for the adapter, and make sure the adapted lens stays at its native “lens to sensor” distance.
This is what tips the scale in favor of Nikon.
I mean other than the weather proofing.
While other brands come out with a new lens to camera interface all to often.
Nikon has a corporate policy.

True to the lens.

If you paid way to much for a Nikor lens every few years, You can still use them on your new Nikon 850 Camera, or whatever the latest and greatest is when the time comes.

Most if not all other major camera makers switch things around,
no more Canon EF mount lenses
the same way a 12 speed cassette does not fit your old bicycle. You need a whole new setup to switch to modern. ... .

If you buy the z6, and a lens once a year for the next five or eight years, when it comes time to buy a z17 or whatever the latest and greatest is in 2029, Nikon is the only safe bet to still be using the same lens to camera interface. Other brands change the interface and you need all new lenses because the adaptor, well, is less than perfect.

Nikon did not switch the interface until they removed the mirror from the camera.

Looking to the future,
Mirrorless will leave the single-lens reflex camera sitting next to the 26er.
Don't get me wrong, I still ride my 26er, but my 29er is better for a number of reasons and most of the time.

Does it make sense to go from a DSLR setup to Mirrorless?!
Depends how much you like photography? Not a cheap hobby.
All modern cameras take better pictures than the older models.
Switching to full frame requires a strategy and plans for the future.

It´s your money.
Most any late model camera can print out a 8 x 10 good enough.

On a quiet street where old ghosts meet
I see her walking now
Away from me so hurriedly
My reason must allow

That I had loved not as I should

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dobte0rRKUA&list=PLxKeRjy_KXLHnXMyZVQGqOJoD7e8P_HoP&index=7

There are other ways to spend all your money besides cameras.
If you want to walk with Venezolana on a quiet street you need an airplane ticket to South America.

The modern world has changed. Do all the electronic gadgets make us happy or keep us from happiness?

Same Mayan girl 5 years ago.

Five years ago she and her grandmother made belts and sold them in the park. She smiled at you until you bought one. No phone.
Today she sells bags made in China. Maya chino. Few people know she ordered them on her phone. She doesn't smile anymore. Beep beep beep all day every day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
441 Posts
lmfao @ "mirrorless is smaller and lighter"



i mean, if i switch to the 10-18 lens, maybe =)

granted, i went from a crop body (80d) to full frame (eos r), so not truly apples to apples

rambling aside, size is the absolute last reason i went mirrorless. hell, the body now rocks the bg-e22 battery grip full tine as well, so if anything, i despise smaller camera bodies.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
I bought a Leica SL last year, so my answer is "Yes mirrorless is worth it."
And the comments about full frame sensors costing more but giving better results is also true.

The comments about lens being more heavy for a mirrorless body aren't necessarily accurate, it depends on which lenses you buy.

The bottom line is and the correct answer depends upon the person behind the camera. Only you can say if the upgrade is worth the cost.

My advice, don't shop based upon pixel count. More pixels do not equal better pictures. Large pixels offer advantages over small pixels. Many pros feel the large pixels render the image as more natural while more pixels may offer more digital data, but also, more digital noise as well. Similar to the cd vs vinyl debates.

Go to the Leica forum and read the comparisons there. Every possible comparison has been made along with experiments using non native lenses so you can see what really works and what doesn't. Even though it is a Leica based and funded forum, the comparisons are genuine and many guys have other brands for traveling on Safari and other places that you may not want to carry $20,000 or $30,000 worth of gear due to security issues.

There are great options out there, you just need to be open minded and educate yourself and avoid the marketing biases that exist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
729 Posts
Go to the Leica forum and read the comparisons there.

educate yourself and avoid the marketing biases that exist.
Got a link to the Leica forum?
Seems there exists more than one forum talking about Leica cameras.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,618 Posts
Anything Leica is going to be pretty pricey, it’s just kind of how it works.

For me, mirrorless vs dslr is mostly down to which pros and cons you want to live with. Price, bulk, battery life, image fine tune, etc. Pick whatever works for you and your budget.

And then sensor size I choose to take on a specific outing is dependent on what I’m doing. If I’m going on the trip explicitly to take photos, then the big sensor, and nice glass are coming out, weight and bulk is a secondary concern. If I’m going out and just going to be taking Incidental photos, then a more compact camera is coming.

My Panasonic ZS100 is easy to carry along, and is good enough quality to share online, or print in reasonable sizes (in good light). I’d also seriously consider a micro 4:3 like the Panasonic GX85 for the same use case if I wanted to change lenses. Doesn’t hurt that it is available with a lens for under $400 iirc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
689 Posts
Lenses are the biggest difference, it's hugely important, especially considering 2.8 is 2.8 no matter. Here's a direct comparison of the difference between the G9 and D750 with the same lens (as in focal length, f stop). Hence taking the G9 is much easier.

LensSize.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,618 Posts
Lenses are the biggest difference, it's hugely important, especially considering 2.8 is 2.8 no matter. Here's a direct comparison of the difference between the G9 and D750 with the same lens (as in focal length, f stop). Hence taking the G9 is much easier.

Just wanting to make sure something is clear here with the comparison photo.

The image is comparing lenses of similar equivalent focal length and F stop, for different sensor sizes. Meaning, the difference you see in the lens sizes is due to how large the lens must make the image circle, not due to the fact that one is mirrorless and the other is a DSLR.

As I said before, lenses for DSLRs and mirrorless cameras are mostly equivalent in size, as long as you’re comparing the same sensor size, focal length and aperture. Meaning, you don’t see a huge difference in the size of lenses between the two types. There are some exceptions to this (mostly wide angle lenses where mirrorless cameras I allow a different design to be used for the lens), but it’s a pretty good rule of thumb, and its really just down to the physics of getting enough light in for the sensor.

Some links showing what I'm talking about. For the record... this is a pain in the butt. MTBR destroys the links that camerasize generates, no matter how I link it.

Like this.
*************/2VMkpNp
So I had to manually screenshot/save/upload :madman:.

Sony A7 RIV (full frame mirrorless) vs Nikon D750 (full frame DSLR), both with their 12-24mm F4 native lenses.


Same cameras, with their native 85mm F1.8 lenses.


Now both with their native 70-200 F2.8 lenses.



As you can see, the lenses themselves are pretty equivalent in size, because the light required to cover the sensor is the same, as its the same size sensor for both cameras. There are differences from lens to lens, so its not 100% equivalent for any comparison you care to make, but overall, they are very similar in size IMO. Which is why I say that if you're carrying multiple lenses, the size advantage of mirrorless camera bodies really isn't a big deal in most circumstances.

However, once you start changing sensor size, you do start seeing dramatic differences in the size of lenses, like the comparison between the Panasonic G9, and the Nikon D750 shown in the post above. Because a 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens, as mentioned. It’s just that a full frame lens needs to collect 4x more light, to create an image circle big enough to cover its 2x larger sensor with the same F2.8. So naturally it’s lens is dramatically larger.

Which is why many of us keep saying If the purpose is to drop the size/weight of the kit you’re carrying around, then the easiest way to do that, is to drop sensor size.

A micro 4:3 camera like the G9/GX85 is a great compromise. You still get a wide array of lenses to choose from, and good image quality, with a much smaller and lighter load to carry with you. It just comes with some loss of image quality (mostly in low, to extremely low light conditions), and most (all?) happen to be mirrorless cameras, which may be a pro, or con, depending on your preferences/viewpoints.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
689 Posts
That's my only problem with the Z series, the flange distance kinda negates the smaller possible lens size, so you end up with pretty darn large primes, even though it's mirrorless. They're twice the size of comparable Sony FE.
 

·
Loud tyres save lives
Joined
·
538 Posts
I find like for like mirrorless setups don't tend to be a significant weight or size saving and some of the lenses that look smaller are because they're a dimmer aperture like a 24-70/4 rather than a 24-70/2.8. There are some compact setups but it's usually from a non like for like build but definitely possible depending on what's needed.

The main reason I feel for going mirrorless is for the capabilities as they have great video which is more convenient than a DSLR, better liveview and increasingly impressive burst speeds and AF performance with Sony's A9 series offering ridiculous speeds.

I did like the 1in based Sony RX100 series cameras for my carry around camera but a couple of years ago picked up the Sony RX1r. It is old these days, lacks IS and decent video but it's fairly small overall and one of the smallest FF cameras, the 35mm F2 is sharp and the sensor is still good for dynamic range and high iso as well as usable shallow DoF.
 

·
saddlemeat
Joined
·
3,873 Posts
Just because you can go big doesn't mean you have to, be like Galen Rowel. If you need more detail there's always medium format, which stunts FX. It's about the picture... who makes big prints anymore anyhow?

edit:
I carry Sony a 16/2.8 and 55-210/4.5-6.3 OSS with my apsc a5000. Lots of bang for the package size.

Most of my prints are 13x19 or less, anything larger doesn't sell. Few have much wall space it seems.

Photoshop skills can be a significant part of the gear package.
 
21 - 40 of 97 Posts
Top