Trying out new cameras and lenses

Hardware
21

While technically the angle of view depends on the sensor size for the same focal length, in practice it makes sense to compare lenses with the same “equivalent” focal length, which then have the same angle. Eg one would compare a 14mm micro 4/3 lens to a 28mm full frame.

For most mounts these days you can find a plethora of lenses with various apertures, so each sensor size has practically everything. Of course, the bigger the sensor, the bigger the lenses (on average).

While I am not familiar with this particular model, a couple of years ago I was seriously considering buying a full-frame MILC, and I was in the lucky position of being able to borrow a Canon Rsomething and a couple of nice lenses from a relative for a weekend. (My relative is a retired photojournalist with GAS, constantly hunting for bargains, buying, trying, and selling used gear. In the last 2 years he bought and sold 3 various MILC kits and surprisingly made a profit overall).

I ended up with some nice pictures and very fatigued hands, especially the wrist. It is not only the camera body, but also the lenses, they protrude a lot and the center of gravity is significantly ahead of the grip, and ergonomic nightmare unless you are using two hands all the time (which I was not used to).

I have been skeptical of full-frame systems ever since for hobbyist/enthusiast purposes. The bodies got smaller, but the lenses didn’t, not by much. And a smaller camera body has less surface for gripping so a lot of people buy a bracket to hold the camera.

In the end, a lot of my experience with various camera systems can ultimately be described as learning about myself, not cameras. I learned that the larger the camera kit, the more likely it is that it stays at home after the initial enthusiasm. I really hope that as sensors develop, some company will revive the 1" sensor MILCs. In the meantime, I am sticking to micro 4/3.

Regarding your practical question: if you live in an area where it is feasible, I would just rent a body and a couple of lenses. Yes, it costs money, but some rental companies allow you to buy the gear and deduct the rental fee.

2 Likes
22

This is normal practise with DSLRs too… I suppose it just comes down to what ones used to. I struggle to imagine consistently shooting with one hand.:smile:

1 Like
23

A person can regularly find the early Sony A7 for less than 300Euro body only.

I have two of these (because they’re so shockingly cheap) and feel that if I can’t get a good photograph, it’s not the fault of the camera.

I shoot old manual focus Nikkors and modern AF Sony. For the kind of work I do I’ve yet to find any show-stopper quirks, or any quirks of any kind, actually.

2 Likes
24

I have an A7s (the 12MP video-oriented version) and it’s great. AF is contrast detect only on this body, and is hopeless for action, but with manual lenses it’s a pleasure to use and delivers great files, the 12MP res not withstanding.

25

I never do either, and am not bothered by the weight/size of the A7 personally even though I’ve been a m4/3 shooter for a long time … but always used my bodies with vintage lens and speed booster on m4/3 so I imagine the weight was already there. I guess given the price of the speed booster I’d rather have bought the A7 earlier… then again I would maybe not have scored it a such a low price 4 years prior… the main economical downturn of my venture is that my GH1 beat-up (not a single marking readable and kind of melting grips even a dead pixel) body and the speed booster now worth almost nothing !

1 Like
26

I used to have GAS but I am cured since… I guess more than a year. I think I bought my last new lens, the M.Zuiko 8-25/4 in autumn 2022. it’s my most expensive lens.

I guess I just needed a proper camera and lenses. My current camera is an Olympus e-m5 mk iii, and I don’t need a better one. I don’t know how many lenses I have but acutally I only use 2 or 3 of them.

Eventually you should notice that your photos are not getting better if you get new/more expensive equipment. But one definitely needs good equipment.

If you can’t stop collecting equipment, you have a problem. Try to focus on actually using the gear that you already have.

You really don’t need a lot of expensive gear to take good photos.

1 Like
27

I’ve been interested in the Sony A7S because of its high ISO performance and full electronic shutter (ie: silent). There’s also the “fat pixel” myth around the A7S that at one time seemed a good reason to buy one. And with the improving state of digital enlargement an A7S… Hmmm…

Alternatively, to get a silent shutter in an A7III or A7RII would set me back at least 700Euro. Such are my mental gymnastics. Though, honestly, the A7 is such a nice camera that I don’t “need” anything.

1 Like
28

If you’d like to try a full frame camera before committing to it, get a used A7 II or Z6. They give you all the image quality of the latest models, just mit the speed.

A few years ago, I tried the Sony RX1. A fantastic lens on a tiny camera. A lovely piece of kit. It taught me to appreciate a good 35mm lens, and a smooth bokeh.

The size of the sensor, though, did not impress me. It’s a one stop difference to APS-C, which is just on the verge of being noticeable in most cases. Not worth the hassle (on its own) if you already have a system you like.

But I’m glad I tried it. Trying stuff out is the only cure to GAS I have been able to find.

1 Like
29

I’m no kind of authority on any of this but high ISO is excellent, as is the dynamic range lower down. The silent shutter works well, albeit with rolling shutter on faster moving subjects.
I can find a couple of files if you like. :slight_smile:

30

Ah. That’s right. The readout speed on the A7S electronic shutter is rather slow, isn’t it? One of my favorite subjects is automobiles and I was wondering how closely I could re-create the Jacques Henri Lartigue racecar effect.

See? You have the wheels turning. :grin:

You’re right, of course, about the dynamic range and such. Are you familiar with the website “Photons to Photos?” They have interesting charts that illustrate dynamic range at various ISO settings. The A7, A7S, and A7R are all really decent performers, even by todays backside illuminated sensor standards. :+1:

1 Like
31

I should try that! :smile: I shoot a fair bit of motorsport, mostly gravel rally. But never really used the A7S… I like my Nikon DSLRs (similar age) for that.
I know of Photons to Photos but must confess I’ve never really properly read up on my cameras performance…
I’ll have to have a read sometime.
Sony got an awful lot right with the first generation of A7 bodies didn’t they? I would say that’s the series that did a lot of the heavy lifting to where Sony is today, right up there with Canon and Nikon as the average pro’s gear of choice.

1 Like
32

I agree that Sony got an awful lot right with the A7-series.

For years I’d been using Canon FF and APS-C but changed to Sony for better dynamic range and image “sharpness” (Canon DSLR sensors are rather soft, perhaps due to the AA filter?).

I never had a problem with motorsports shooting an A6000 (which now has over 125,000 clicks on the shutter) and only picked up the A7 cameras because they were so cheap. Wherein I happily discovered a set of .dsp files that I use in RawTherapee with a nearly “cinematic” subtle beautiful “color grading.” I now shoot the A7 units as much as I can, even for motorsports (well, OK, they’re great for wandering the paddock area).

Friends shoot Nikon D850 and LOVE them. Nikon knows how to make a proper camera, don’t they?

2 Likes
33

Partly why I got the Nikons (first a D7100 then a D750) was cost…

I had the A7S with the kit 28-70, a 55-210 (APS-C so only 5MP on the A7s!) and a couple of adapted Pentax lenses.
Then I got keen on motorsport…
I wanted a fast tele, and fast continuous AF. My kit gave me neither - and upgrading to something like an A7iii with a 70-200 was too much for my budget.
But I got the D7100 and a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 second hand for about $1100 AUD, and found I was very happy with it, so after a year or so invested in the full frame D750 and then later again a 24-70 f2.8.

So I’m committed to the F mount… :smile: and happy about it too, but I have a lot of respect for the Sonys.
Still have the A7S - it doesn’t get used much at present but mostly just due to ‘circumstances’.

1 Like
34

I wonder if you could share the list of your favorite micro 4/3 lenses (just curious).

35

The lens that I use by far the most is the M.Zuiko 12-45/4. It’s just a standard zoom lens, so boring but kind of an excellent and ingenious lens, very compact, lightweight and versatile, sharp, great bokeh, great sunstar, chromatic aberrations are it’s only weakness.
The second one is the 8-25/4.
Very rarely I use the 40-150/4-5.6, and when I digitize negatives the 60/2.8 macro.
Maybe I should use the 12/2.0 more often, but I think so far I only used it once or twice.

I must admit sometimes I do think of getting the 17/1.2 or the 40-150/4.0, but then I remember that I need the money for traveling.

1 Like
36

I use M43 for family trips. My go to is 12-60/F2.8 and the 20/F1.7.

1 Like
37

You need a slow rolling shutter. We can digitally simulate this by photographing a video. Then, on a computer, make a still image by taking the top 10 rows from the first frame, the next 10 rows from the next frame, and so on. EDIT: That would give a “leaning back” effect. To get a “leaning forward” effect, take the bottom 10 rows from the first frame, then the next 10 rows from the next frame, etc.

For a bit more sophistication and a more natural effect, use an alpha blend between the frames.

See “slitscan” images.

38

I do like the tonal gradation with full frame but prefer one inch compacts for social photography I try and get a mix if possible

As people say the Sony a7s are affordable though it is maybe worth that bit more to get the mark 3 as it has image stabilization and a silent shutter

Things like the Canon 6d are also affordable, some people seem to do quite well with old film lenses on them though I don’t think you would get things like peaking so the Sony Alpha is a better choice in this regard , you could put an argument for the Canon being better for sensor dust even if less easily adaptable than mirrorless for old lenses, highlight tone priority setting looks good to me on canon also

For some reason 50mm lenses don’t cost that much

I find having a 50 mm lens encourages me to have a portrait format to include more of the scene rather than using a wide angle lens in landscape mode

This might be advantageous if the picture is going to be viewed on devices like smartphones

I’m told that the Canon 50mm has the same optics as it’s predecessors right the way back to film so it’s a bit like using an old film lens but having all the auto focus

Sony

I don’t enjoy the buying side: too much of a nervous disposition but once I get my head around a new camera I’m happy again , like anything I think you can enjoy a job well done but if it goes bad it seems to me a bit like the eastern philosophy of samsara, dim memories of Rolleiflexes and Mamiya RB67s from a past life come back to me

One of the advantages of open source is its greater distance from consumerism

You can buy second hand and get good trade in if you change your mind or invest in a photo book first
a possibility?

1 Like
39

I totally agree with all this, and I can confidently say I don’t have a problem and am not looking to buy new gear to “fix” my photography. I’m very happy with my current kit, but I would still like to try new systems. At some point, I may end up settling on a system, but I’m enjoying the journey so far of trying out new and old tech.

Apart from an old Canon DSLR gathering dust that I still haven’t sold and may pass on to my kids, I have two camera bodies, an X-S10 and X-T5. I will be selling the X-S10 because it doesn’t really offer me anything different to the X-T5. I currently have 7 lenses for it, 3 first-party Fujis and 4 budget 3rd party lenses. So, when I say I have GAS, it’s more that I enjoy trying out new gear. I certainly wouldn’t say I have a large collection of equipment compared to many in the photography community.

GAS quite rightly has negative connotations because I think it can be a problem when people think the latest gear is crucial for better photos, and consumerism in general is not a great path to follow. But I also think it’s fine to admit that gear is part of the hobby’s appeal for many people, and new gear (new to you, not necessarily brand new) can also inspire us to get out and shoot more. Some people love certain aspects of the hobby and don’t enjoy other aspects, whereas I enjoy everything about it: the actual shooting, the gear, the processing, creating albums, printing… I enjoy spending my free time (which is precious at my life stage) doing any one of these things, and that does include research and trying new gear.

Yes, I’m really not expecting to be blown away by the extra 1-stop difference in DR or low light performance, but I’m still interested in revisiting 35mm equivalents. I’ve been on a APS-C size now for about 12 years, and cameras have changed massively since then. So, I do have some curiosity about trying 35mm equivalent again, but I wouldn’t say that’s the major reason for wanting to try something like the A7C. I also want to try a different manufacturer, the viewfinder on the side to avoid squishy nose syndrome, and different ergonomics in general. I’m certainly not set on buying this camera, but I would definitely like to try it out.

Very good point, and this is a journey I’m also enjoying. If I do manage to try all or most systems at some point, I will have learned about a wide range of cameras and also what I personally enjoy/need. My experience so far is limited to Canon and Fuji, and my Canon experience is now outdated.

3 Likes
40

Ok guys, what do you think about an amateur photographer who already has a 16mm lens (full frame) but thinks he needs a 9mm?