Making a comeback - But does it need to be dSLR?

mrbez

mrbez

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,034
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys,

I've been away from the photography scene for quite a few years now and I'm looking to pick the hobby back up.

I used to have a 7D and my main topics of interest were candid street photography and landscapes.

The question that I now have, is do I truly need a dSLR?
One of the reasons that I sold off most of my equipment was due to the weight of it all - I travel a lot and therefore felt myself no longer wanting to bring my camera everywhere.

More and more people appear to be jumping to the likes of the Sony A series or the Fuji X-T's, but can they really deliver the same quality images?
If so, which of those are preferred?

Looking forward to your replies.

Thanks.
 
It is very subjective and preference based.

You have to try the mirrorless cameras and see if you like them.

I have owned a X100 and X-T1 and they are not only quite different to each other, they are also very different to DSLR`s.

Most notably the viewfinders, AF system and menu / controls.
 
Google Fuji artifacts. Tried several RAW converters and still got painterly effects in foliage and waxy skin. The faults are visible even in the RAWs.

I experienced them and went back from Fuji X-T2 to a DSLR system.

Very happy now with DSLR.
 
went a few times from one to the other and am now back with DLSR ,purely a personal thing I prefer a bigger heavier body and I like the OV but the mirrorless are great cameras ,you need to try them for a few weeks I would suggest.
 
The Sony A7 systems use the same Full Frame sensors as other full frame DSLRs from CaNikon (Sony supply the sensors for Nikon) so the actual end result will be the same or better. The main difference is lens availability, AF performance in lower light and cost. For shooting landscape and 'street', you can get the same or better results from a mirrorless system as you would with a traditional DSLR.

The Sony A6000/6300/6500 cameras use APS-C sensors, the same as your old 7D. I moved from Canon to an early Nex5 and found the results were considerably better than the Canon output.
 
I use a 7D but have recently purchased a Canon M5. The AF isn't quite as good but in every other repect the M5 is better, including the sensor which is the same as in the 80D (so a proper DSLR) ;)
Lens wise I have the 11-22mm, 22mm, 15-45mm and 55-200mm and the whole lot fits in a small bag but if I want to put anything larger on it the adapter allows me to attach any of my EF lenses with hardly any loss of AF speed.

The M series never seems to get a mention when mirrorless is brought up but I think it's a superb little camera.
 
For the subjects you shoot I'd say a DSLR isn't essential. A mirrorless system will be fine. But if you use Adobe for your post processing I'd avoid the Fuji system and maybe look at Sony.
 
If the reason you got rid of the 7d was the weight then I can't see anything new really making much different in that respect in the DSLR world. I haven't tried any mirrorless system since the NEX-5 and I know they've improved a lot, but I just prefer the handling of a DSLR.

I'm happy taking mine out and about with one lens though and don't mind it being a bit big. If you get another DSLR, is it just going to sit in the house?
 
Ignore Fuji artefacts.
Google "processing Fuji in Lightroom", I know exactly what they mean and it used to bug me. The problem is the way Adobe handle sharpening, once you know how to deal with it and setup an import preset to handle it it's a non-issue

I agree with the above by the way, if you're looking for weight reduction don't just swap DSLR system (although the Nikon D750 is the best in that regard), but if you're used to crop anyway Fuji is an excellent option, but if the "worms" scare you off then do consider Olympus on M43, weight reduction wise that's the greatest but you're trading off against subject separation.

Sony could be a good choice, it having full frame and all, but the lenses are just as big and heavy, so no point in my eyes, might as well go D750.

I do wish that physics could be chucked out of the window and have M43 size, with full frame and little lenses but sadly not :(

Oh by the way Fuji is half image, half experience, if nothing else if you can try a few systems out and see what fits for you.
 
Last edited:
JohnN said:
Ignore Fuji artefacts.

Sony could be a good choice, it having full frame and all, but the lenses are just as big and heavy, so no point in my eyes, might as well go D750.
Click to expand...

Sony FF lenses are big compared to M43 but in the main they are not as big or as heavy as Canon equivalents. They are more expensive though.
 
JohnN said:
Sony could be a good choice, it having full frame and all, but the lenses are just as big and heavy, so no point in my eyes, might as well go D750.

I do wish that physics could be chucked out of the window and have M43 size, with full frame and little lenses but sadly not :(
Click to expand...

Wayne Els said:
Sony FF lenses are big compared to M43 but in the main they are not as big or as heavy as Canon equivalents. They are more expensive though.
Click to expand...

And... If you're a 28 / 35 / 55mm prime sort of guy a Sony FF and one of those is about the same size as a SLR style MFT camera.
 
A Fuji rangefinder style body and their pancake lens is tiny compared to an SLR (other than the Pentax 110!).
 
See, I look at that and think how much more comfortable the 6D would be to hold. The sony just looks slippery! But if I was looking for something smaller, I'd probably go for something like the tz100 or rx100 cameras.
 
draiman said:
See, I look at that and think how much more comfortable the 6D would be to hold. The sony just looks slippery! But if I was looking for something smaller, I'd probably go for something like the tz100 or rx100 cameras.
Click to expand...

To be fair you're right. The Sony isn't slippery, I was out on our morning dogwalk with it in my hand for a pair of hours this morning. But it isn't as ergonomic as the 6D. With an adapted 70-300L it's simpler to carry it by the lens body. But for me any size/weight reduction is a bit of a bonus when I will come to camp with it, I bought it for the improved IQ & DR. If I wanted a crop body I would probably have got an X Pro 2. I really like the X100s.
 
That's a fair point, I've the Fuji XT-20 and have fitted a hand grip to help with just that, I did the same with the XT-1.

The funny thing is when I got into this lark it felt like there was just Canon and Nikon (I know there was more but I didn't know then), at the time I went Canon simply because a friend had one, but now there's so much choice it's bewildering
 
Why not try a used X100. If you dont like it you could sell it on with very little (if any) loss.
 
Wayne Els said:
To be fair you're right. The Sony isn't slippery, I was out on our morning dogwalk with it in my hand for a pair of hours this morning. But it isn't as ergonomic as the 6D. With an adapted 70-300L it's simpler to carry it by the lens body. But for me any size/weight reduction is a bit of a bonus when I will come to camp with it, I bought it for the improved IQ & DR. If I wanted a crop body I would probably have got an X Pro 2. I really like the X100s.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the A7R2 is not slippery at all. It all just looks so shiny :p. Compared to the Canon at least. I've been out of photography as well for a few years too (much the same as the OP) and I feel like I've come back with a world where there are so many new mirrorless cameras and very capable compacts. Myself I've been thinking about an RX100 model as they look great and very portable. There are still times when a big DSLR is really not the ideal solution and I think that for once, there's a small camera I wouldn't be cursing when I went to use it. It really is amazing how far the small camera market has come on.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
Google Fuji artifacts. Tried several RAW converters and still got painterly effects in foliage and waxy skin. The faults are visible even in the RAWs.

I experienced them and went back from Fuji X-T2 to a DSLR system.

Very happy now with DSLR.
Click to expand...


You were doing something very wrong in post then, because I use an old version of LR, I shoot RAW with the XT-1 and don't experience this. People see one vlog or article where the writer hadn't a clue how to set up their camera or post process, and suddenly it's a big issue ...
 
Cagey75 said:
You were doing something very wrong in post then, because I use an old version of LR, I shoot RAW with the XT-1 and don't experience this. People see one vlog or article where the writer hadn't a clue how to set up their camera or post process, and suddenly it's a big issue ...
Click to expand...

It's easily replicated and avoidable once you know how, but by no means obvious.

Until I found out I was looking at OnOne RAW to tackle this very issue and I'd been using Lightroom for years
 
Last edited:
Wayne Els said:
See attached pic of a 6D, which is a fair bit smaller than most FF DSLR's and a few crop ones too with a 50mm Sigma and a A7R2 with a Sony 55mm.View attachment 107309
Click to expand...
Whilst that looks compelling, the Sigma lens is 1.4, the 6d would be much smaller with the 50 1.8 (not that the IQis as good)
 
The lenses don't show anything really, what does is the sensor marking on each. See how much further back the mark on the dslr is, shows how much bulk having a mirror system in there adds.
 
Phil V said:
Whilst that looks compelling, the Sigma lens is 1.4, the 6d would be much smaller with the 50 1.8 (not that the IQis as good)
Click to expand...
its also got an l-bracket looking at the bottom of the pic so smaller again without that
 
Cagey75 said:
The lenses don't show anything really, what does is the sensor marking on each. See how much further back the mark on the dslr is, shows how much bulk having a mirror system in there adds.
Click to expand...

If you line up the sensor on that image and fit a 1.8 lens to the Canon, you'd see the Sony was deeper behind the sensor (because there's got to be somewhere to put all that camera) and the Canon deeper in front (due to the mirror box), but take the L bracket off the Canon and it's not so different at all.
 
The body is half (less more often than not) of the weight and size.

Seek out the website that compares camera bodies with lenses on (google it), something like camera compare with lens. Anyway it will give a much better idea of size/weight, also as Phil says do keep the lenses like for like as that also makes a big difference (look at the 400mm 2.8!)
 
the a7r11 625 g with bat etc. and canon 6d mk1 is 770g with bat etc.. so not a lot in it really.
 
niko said:
the a7r11 625 g with bat etc. and canon 6d mk1 is 770g with bat etc.. so not a lot in it really.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be down to the better quality materials used to build the Sony? Isn't the 6DmkII all polycarbonate exterior?
 
Cagey75 said:
Wouldn't that be down to the better quality materials used to build the Sony? Isn't the 6DmkII all polycarbonate exterior?
Click to expand...
polycarb is a great, strong material. but that's kind of beside the point. there are great reasons to buy the sony but doing it for size and weight savings dont really add up. i am looking at going back full frame after a few year away with m4/3 and was hoping the 6dmk11 would bring a bit more to the table as i realised the bag size and overall weight for a 6d or the sony with a 24-70 (my most used walk about) is not much different
 
niko said:
polycarb is a great, strong material. but that's kind of beside the point. there are great reasons to buy the sony but doing it for size and weight savings dont really add up. i am looking at going back full frame after a few year away with m4/3 and was hoping the 6dmk11 would bring a bit more to the table as i realised the bag size and overall weight for a 6d or the sony with a 24-70 (my most used walk about) is not much different
Click to expand...

That wasn't my point. Polycarbonate is going to be lighter than magnesium alloy, the sony is the weight it is because of the steel body, and still the 'small for FF' Canon is a lot bigger. I was just giving a reason for the weights.

I use the Fuji XT-1 [and xpro1 on side], it is built a lot better than say, a Nikon D7200, but it's almost half the weight still. I did use a D800E for years with big heavy 2.8 lenses, I switched partly for the size and weight differences - also I don't really 'need' an FX/FF camera and I prefer to use lighter primes mostly. Fuji is perfect for me for these reasons.

Here is that camera size comparison site that someone mentioned, in case anyone is interested: http://camerasize.com/
 
yep i used that site to compare sizes as well, not much in it as far as weight and space saving is concerned, dslr's are deeper but that smaller depth in the grip for ff.mirrorless doesn't make the bag needed much smaller. the xpro and primes set up is without a doubt a lovely compact package. that said i think i will probably end up changing my m4/3 to sony 7r11 if i can justify the cost to myself
 
Well when I had the D750 I used to lug round a mid sized backpack, now it's a tiny triangle shoulder sling thing, so for me at least it real terms size was brought down
 
Cagey75 said:
You were doing something very wrong in post then, because I use an old version of LR, I shoot RAW with the XT-1 and don't experience this. People see one vlog or article where the writer hadn't a clue how to set up their camera or post process, and suddenly it's a big issue ...
Click to expand...
I disagree. I tried at least 8 different pieces of software and no matter what I tried (including not sharpening at all) I could still see artefacts. I could even see them with jpeg. When I raised it on here several people posted me examples of their shots to show that these artefacts weren't present on their images, and do you know what? I could see it on several.

I deduced that some people are sensitive to it and some aren't. If you are it'll drive you mad to the point of ditching Fuji, for the rest Fuji will be excellent for you. I wish I was the latter as I like the Fuji colours, but I had far too many landscapes ruined. What's frustrating is that it's not present all the time and I couldn't figure it out.
 
I've got both full frame dSLRs and M43 mirrorless.

There are some pictures that I've got with the big Canons that simply wouldn't be as good if taken with a M43 camera; there are also some pictures I've got with a M43 camera that wouldn't have happened with a FF Canon dSLR. In my view, the use of both is justified if you anticipate what you want to achieve when you leave home.

Mind you, if you're carrying a Canon 1Ds II, tucking a Panasonic GM5 in your jacket pocket is no hardship…

27595905293_801d33e4dc_b.jpg
 
Believe me I'm sensitive to it and hate it, odd about the jpegs though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top