Camera advice needed.

[zackiedawg]

There's another aspect to the convenience of a mirrorless system often lost in all the discussion about weight...and that's bulk. Even when comparing a small entry level DSLR that is very light and makes the comparison to a mirrorless seem much closer - I also take into consideration that a mirrorless like the A6xxx series is extremely thin compared to any DSLR...so even with weights being the same, the A6xxx remains more 'packable' into small space - smaller bags in general can be used even with the same size lenses, because the thinness of the body allows it to fit into a slot or recess in a bag that would normally be reserved for a lens. The rather bulky 'square' shape of a DSLR, due to the mirror box and fat registration distance will take up more room in a bag and even with a basic kit lens or two lenses, will need a bigger bag to carry. I shoot with both a DSLR sized system and a mirrorless system - and even if I consider the same size lenses, I can always squeeze my A6300 into a smaller bag or bring more lenses along in the same sized bag. So don't consider only weight - but also bulk and volume.

 

[Accident]

thank you for all the great information and the time to write up some very informative and detailed information. It's very appreciated.

 

[bob100]

There's another aspect to the convenience of a mirrorless system often lost in all the discussion about weight...and that's bulk. Even when comparing a small entry level DSLR that is very light and makes the comparison to a mirrorless seem much closer - I also take into consideration that a mirrorless like the A6xxx series is extremely thin compared to any DSLR...so even with weights being the same, the A6xxx remains more 'packable' into small space - smaller bags in general can be used even with the same size lenses, because the thinness of the body allows it to fit into a slot or recess in a bag that would normally be reserved for a lens. The rather bulky 'square' shape of a DSLR, due to the mirror box and fat registration distance will take up more room in a bag and even with a basic kit lens or two lenses, will need a bigger bag to carry. I shoot with both a DSLR sized system and a mirrorless system - and even if I consider the same size lenses, I can always squeeze my A6300 into a smaller bag or bring more lenses along in the same sized bag. So don't consider only weight - but also bulk and volume.

volume and weight - very true. I can squeeze my mirrorless camera, 22mm pancake lens and 55-250 APS-C lens in a small waist pack - you hardly know it's there !
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[wilkeliza]

I have (well it is actually my fiance's but we share everything) a Fujifilm X-T10. It is a great mirror-less camera and gets great photos. Lots of settings but easy to learn. The auto is also superb. I've only used it twice now and have managed to take some great shots. I can't wait to take it to WDW and DL this year. We have a 23mm lense which is close to the "natural eye" so you can look and shoot with out having to set up much for the shot. There is also a 16-50mm lense that is our default since it can be variable in zoom. My friend also has the camera and actually gets invited to do social media with it for Universal and Disney.

 

[rymahoney]

I would suggest also looking at the rx10ii. We have the a6000 great camera but I think the all in one rx10ii would have been what I would have bought had my wife not had a say in the matter.

 

[LumosQ102]

Mind if I piggy back on with a question?

I currently use a mirrorless system - the Canon EOS-M. It has served me well but I think I've outgrown what I can get out of it, I need a camera that is a little better for night shots & my EOS-M doesn't have the ISO that I am finding I need.

Would anyone have any suggestions for someone wanting to stretch their skills a little more?

With many thanks

Kirsty

 

[havoc315]

Mind if I piggy back on with a question?

I currently use a mirrorless system - the Canon EOS-M. It has served me well but I think I've outgrown what I can get out of it, I need a camera that is a little better for night shots & my EOS-M doesn't have the ISO that I am finding I need.

Would anyone have any suggestions for someone wanting to stretch their skills a little more?

With many thanks

Kirsty

The EOS-M uses a Canon aps-c sensor. In terms of ISO performance, all aps-c cameras are pretty similar. You'd find a very slight upgrade if you simply went to the newest EOS-M camera. The M5 would likely give you another half-stop of usable ISO range.

Sony and Nikon aps-c cameras are sometimes found to have slightly better ISO performance, though to some degree its eye of the beholder. And again, it won't be a big difference.
Switching to the newest and best aps-c sensor, you may get a 1 stop improvement.

For a big step up in low light performance, there are 2 choices:
Upgrade your lens. A 2.8 zoom will give much better low light performance than the kit lens. A 1.8 prime would be even better.

Or upgrade to full frame. That's pretty expensive. But full frame would give 1-2 stops of better ISO performance.

What is the highest ISO you are currently finding usable? What lens are you using?

 

[mom2rtk]

Mind if I piggy back on with a question?

I currently use a mirrorless system - the Canon EOS-M. It has served me well but I think I've outgrown what I can get out of it, I need a camera that is a little better for night shots & my EOS-M doesn't have the ISO that I am finding I need.

Would anyone have any suggestions for someone wanting to stretch their skills a little more?

With many thanks

Kirsty

If ISO is your issue and you want to stay Canon, the 6D is a great choice. But being full frame, you might end up needing new lenses as well.

I felt like I maxed out at 3200 ISO with my T2i but now consider 25,600 usable with the 6D.

 

[bob100]

Mind if I piggy back on with a question?

I currently use a mirrorless system - the Canon EOS-M. It has served me well but I think I've outgrown what I can get out of it, I need a camera that is a little better for night shots & my EOS-M doesn't have the ISO that I am finding I need.

Would anyone have any suggestions for someone wanting to stretch their skills a little more?
With many thanks
Kirsty

yes, for significantly better low light performance you would probably need a full frame model like the 6D. You can make some improvements using Photopshop and noise reduction software but there are limits. Larger aperture lens helps. For my purposes the original M had acceptable ISO performance but suffered from poor auto focusing and ergonomics. I'm looking at the new Canon M5 - good AF, it has a viewfinder and works well with EF and EF-S lens. But it's larger and more expensive.
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[LumosQ102]

The EOS-M uses a Canon aps-c sensor. In terms of ISO performance, all aps-c cameras are pretty similar. You'd find a very slight upgrade if you simply went to the newest EOS-M camera. The M5 would likely give you another half-stop of usable ISO range.

Sony and Nikon aps-c cameras are sometimes found to have slightly better ISO performance, though to some degree its eye of the beholder. And again, it won't be a big difference.
Switching to the newest and best aps-c sensor, you may get a 1 stop improvement.

For a big step up in low light performance, there are 2 choices:
Upgrade your lens. A 2.8 zoom will give much better low light performance than the kit lens. A 1.8 prime would be even better.

Or upgrade to full frame. That's pretty expensive. But full frame would give 1-2 stops of better ISO performance.

What is the highest ISO you are currently finding usable? What lens are you using?

Thank you.

Lens - I use the kit lens which is the EF-M 18-55 (f3.5-5.6) that I tend to only use daytime / outside, and my pancake lens that does better at night - EF-M 22, F2. The 18-55 manages up to 2500 without going terribly grainy, with the pancake I can go higher, but not massively. Both Canon lenses.

If ISO is your issue and you want to stay Canon, the 6D is a great choice. But being full frame, you might end up needing new lenses as well.

I felt like I maxed out at 3200 ISO with my T2i but now consider 25,600 usable with the 6D.

OK, you've sold me on the 6D! Crikey thats a big jump. What lenses do you use?

yes, for significantly better low light performance you would probably need a full frame model like the 6D. You can make some improvements using Photopshop and noise reduction software but there are limits. Larger aperture lens helps. For my purposes the original M had acceptable ISO performance but suffered from poor auto focusing and ergonomics. I'm looking at the new Canon M5 - good AF, it has a viewfinder and works well with EF and EF-S lens. But it's larger and more expensive.
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

I'm very fond of it, its been a great camera, a useful step up form my old point & shoot, but the more creative i want to be the more frustrating it is. That and the focus lags a little when something is happening quickly - safari, parades... what lenses do you use?

With thanks to you all for your help with this, most appreciated

 

[mom2rtk]

OK, you've sold me on the 6D! Crikey thats a big jump. What lenses do you use?

You can buy the 6D in a kit with the 24-105 f/4L IS. It's a pretty good lens. Not a bad range on a full frame.

I also like the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. That 2.8 coupled with the high ISO capability is outstanding! And the lens is sharp as a tack.

I went with the 6D in my quest for better low light capability. And I was not disappointed.

Beware it's a larger and much heavier package, especially with the EF lenses. But it's a spectacular combo.

If you do decide to get one, subscribe to Canonpricewatch.com and watch for a deal. They list deals on the 6D fairly often.

 

[mom2rtk]

Here are a few sample shots. You can click on the shot to get to Flickr to see the Exif data.

A Christmas Fantasy by mom2rtk, on Flickr

Kit Lens Yeti by mom2rtk, on Flickr

Hat Box Ghost by mom2rtk, on Flickr

The Old Hag by mom2rtk, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

Thank you.

Lens - I use the kit lens which is the EF-M 18-55 (f3.5-5.6) that I tend to only use daytime / outside, and my pancake lens that does better at night - EF-M 22, F2. The 18-55 manages up to 2500 without going terribly grainy, with the pancake I can go higher, but not massively. Both Canon lenses.



OK, you've sold me on the 6D! Crikey thats a big jump. What lenses do you use?



I'm very fond of it, its been a great camera, a useful step up form my old point & shoot, but the more creative i want to be the more frustrating it is. That and the focus lags a little when something is happening quickly - safari, parades... what lenses do you use?

With thanks to you all for your help with this, most appreciated

If you're sold on full frame, you have lots of options. You aren't invested into lenses yet, so you can do into any system.

The Canon 6d is great, but a bit bulky. Also getting a bit older, it is due for an upgrade this year.
There is a rumor that they will introduce a 6dii AND a mirrorless full frame 6d version.

In Sony world, you might want to look at the Sony A7ii. Same price as the 6d, but mirrorless. Significantly smaller than the 6d. Quite a few advantages over the 6d but lenses may tend to be more affordable for the 6d. If you stick to wider angles and primes, the A7ii can be much smaller than the 6d. If you are looking at long zoom lenses, 2.8 zooms, etc... then the size differences aren't quite so big.

In Nikon world, the D610 is comparable in price and features to the 6d. I shoot with the D750 which I love... costs a little bit more than those 2 cameras, but a much much more advanced autofocus system, dual card slots and other features. If you love dynamic range, the Nikon and Sony can both out-perform the Canon 6d. (But the 6D image quality is nothing to sneeze at).

Anyway, in the $1400-$2000 ballpark, you have quite a few options that can give some stellar high ISO performance.

Here is a comparison in image quality between the Canon 6d, Sony A7ii and Nikon D610 -- You will see pretty similar performance. The Sony and Nikon will have far more dynamic range at lower ISOs, but the Canon maintains better dynamic range at high ISO. They all have very similar noise-ISO performance.

 

[mom2rtk]

If you're sold on full frame, you have lots of options. You aren't invested into lenses yet, so you can do into any system.

The Canon 6d is great, but a bit bulky. Also getting a bit older, it is due for an upgrade this year.
There is a rumor that they will introduce a 6dii AND a mirrorless full frame 6d version.

In Sony world, you might want to look at the Sony A7ii. Same price as the 6d, but mirrorless. Significantly smaller than the 6d. Quite a few advantages over the 6d but lenses may tend to be more affordable for the 6d. If you stick to wider angles and primes, the A7ii can be much smaller than the 6d. If you are looking at long zoom lenses, 2.8 zooms, etc... then the size differences aren't quite so big.

In Nikon world, the D610 is comparable in price and features to the 6d. I shoot with the D750 which I love... costs a little bit more than those 2 cameras, but a much much more advanced autofocus system, dual card slots and other features. If you love dynamic range, the Nikon and Sony can both out-perform the Canon 6d. (But the 6D image quality is nothing to sneeze at).

Anyway, in the $1400-$2000 ballpark, you have quite a few options that can give some stellar high ISO performance.

Here is a comparison in image quality between the Canon 6d, Sony A7ii and Nikon D610 -- You will see pretty similar performance. The Sony and Nikon will have far more dynamic range at lower ISOs, but the Canon maintains better dynamic range at high ISO. They all have very similar noise-ISO performance.

A mirrorless 6D sounds great! I would love to have a lighter package.

But the age of the camera also means there are and will be some screaming deals on the old model.

If cost is an issue, the 6D deserves a good look.

 

[havoc315]

A mirrorless 6D sounds great! I would love to have a lighter package.

But the age of the camera also means there are and will be some screaming deals on the old model.

If cost is an issue, the 6D deserves a good look.

Yes, you can always save money by buying yesterday's model... and the 6d, d600, a7.. are still very capable cameras.
If the rumors are correct and they do a mirrorless 6d -- which I suspect is true -- the weight savings won't really be tremendous once you factor in the lenses.

The main advantages and disadvantages will all be related to the EVF. It will use the dual pixel AF system -- not as good as the Sony, Panasonic and Olympus AF systems but decent. It won't really rival the AF speed of real phase detect though.
So the AF will be a little slower than dSLR.
But, dual pixel af is more accurate than traditional AF-- so you'll get that greater accuracy through the viewfinder.
If they put in a top notch EVF, the viewfinder will be bigger and brighter than an OVF. It will give you greater flexibility to change menus, use levels, review images, without removing your eye from the viewfinder. It will have less mirror vibration/shutter shock affecting image quality. It will give you AF over a greater portion of the viewfinder. And it will let you use the viewfinder for video.

The mirrorless 6d may become a better option for video, travel, street shooting. The traditional 6dii will likely be better for sports.

 

[bob100]

Thank you.

I'm very fond of it, its been a great camera, a useful step up form my old point & shoot, but the more creative i want to be the more frustrating it is. That and the focus lags a little when something is happening quickly - safari, parades... what lenses do you use?

With thanks to you all for your help with this, most appreciated

that's the beauty of mirrorless cameras, you can use almost any lens (with adapter)
I've used the old original 100-400, 100mm macro, 55-250, 50mm 1.8, 30mm 1.4 and the 22mm f/2 pancake that came with it

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[LumosQ102]

You can buy the 6D in a kit with the 24-105 f/4L IS. It's a pretty good lens. Not a bad range on a full frame.

I also like the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. That 2.8 coupled with the high ISO capability is outstanding! And the lens is sharp as a tack.

I went with the 6D in my quest for better low light capability. And I was not disappointed.

Beware it's a larger and much heavier package, especially with the EF lenses. But it's a spectacular combo.

If you do decide to get one, subscribe to Canonpricewatch.com and watch for a deal. They list deals on the 6D fairly often.

Those photos are gorgeous. Thank you very much for your tips, so super helpful. For that quality of photo I think I can handle the extra weight of the camera!

If you're sold on full frame, you have lots of options. You aren't invested into lenses yet, so you can do into any system.

The Canon 6d is great, but a bit bulky. Also getting a bit older, it is due for an upgrade this year.
There is a rumor that they will introduce a 6dii AND a mirrorless full frame 6d version.

In Sony world, you might want to look at the Sony A7ii. Same price as the 6d, but mirrorless. Significantly smaller than the 6d. Quite a few advantages over the 6d but lenses may tend to be more affordable for the 6d. If you stick to wider angles and primes, the A7ii can be much smaller than the 6d. If you are looking at long zoom lenses, 2.8 zooms, etc... then the size differences aren't quite so big.

In Nikon world, the D610 is comparable in price and features to the 6d. I shoot with the D750 which I love... costs a little bit more than those 2 cameras, but a much much more advanced autofocus system, dual card slots and other features. If you love dynamic range, the Nikon and Sony can both out-perform the Canon 6d. (But the 6D image quality is nothing to sneeze at).

Anyway, in the $1400-$2000 ballpark, you have quite a few options that can give some stellar high ISO performance.

Here is a comparison in image quality between the Canon 6d, Sony A7ii and Nikon D610 -- You will see pretty similar performance. The Sony and Nikon will have far more dynamic range at lower ISOs, but the Canon maintains better dynamic range at high ISO. They all have very similar noise-ISO performance.

Thank you for that breakdown, really helpful. I think I need to go have a play with these and see what works for me. I've used Canon for such a long time, but I don't have anything tying me to them anymore, so if I can get a better performance from another model, then...

that's the beauty of mirrorless cameras, you can use almost any lens (with adapter)
I've used the old original 100-400, 100mm macro, 55-250, 50mm 1.8, 30mm 1.4 and the 22mm f/2 pancake that came with it

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

Those are some great photos! thank you very much for your tips.


Really - thanks to all three of you for your tips. The amount of information out there can be deafening, and when your area of interest is a bit, well, niche, it really helps to have a place to start from people with similar interests.

 

[havoc315]

Thank you for that breakdown, really helpful. I think I need to go have a play with these and see what works for me. I've used Canon for such a long time, but I don't have anything tying me to them anymore, so if I can get a better performance from another model, then...

"Better" performance is measured by so many pros and cons of each.

I find Nikon delivers the best image quality across comparable models. But not talking about blatant screaming differences. The same shot taken with the different comparable cameras will produce nearly identical results. Nikon may also have the best autofocus system, at least when dealing with the viewfinder.
The Canon 6d has a rather basic limited auto focus system. Very accurate at center point, but not much capability beyond that. It is slightly lower resolution than the Sony and Nikon models. Depending on what test is used to measure it, some would say it has the best low light performance. But it depends on the format of the test -- some would find that it not quite as good as Nikon and Sony. The Canon is also a bit bigger and bulkier. But a huge advantage is the vast fairly affordable lens lineup.
Sony brings a whole raft of mirrorless advantages but a more expensive lens lineup.

 

[bob100]

Those photos are gorgeous. Thank you very much for your tips, so super helpful. For that quality of photo I think I can handle the extra weight of the camera!


Thank you for that breakdown, really helpful. I think I need to go have a play with these and see what works for me. I've used Canon for such a long time, but I don't have anything tying me to them anymore, so if I can get a better performance from another model, then...
Those are some great photos! thank you very much for your tips.

Really - thanks to all three of you for your tips. The amount of information out there can be deafening, and when your area of interest is a bit, well, niche, it really helps to have a place to start from people with similar interests.

U R welcome
Canon has better "IQ" image quality, AF, and a larger selection of lens (the pros prefer Canon !) but look at the other brands including mirrorless options. I'm looking at the new M5 - great to have DSLR features in a smaller mirrorless model.

 

[havoc315]

U R welcome
Canon has better "IQ" image quality, AF, and a larger selection of lens (the pros prefer Canon !) but look at the other brands including mirrorless options. I'm looking at the new M5 - great to have DSLR features in a smaller mirrorless model.

I don't know anyone who thinks Canon has better image quality anymore. Though they are starting to catch up to the others.

And never ever follow the "pros"... You wouldn't buy your family sedan based on what brand professional race car drivers are driving.

Pros are drawn to Canon for reasons that are entirely irrelevant to ordinary customers:
1-- CPS-- Canon Professional Support, their support program for pros is spectacular. But only pros can use it. For example, at the Olympics, they maintain a full inventory of loaner equipment, they maintain on site staff to clean and repair gear.
2-- There are only 2 truly completely professional models that exist -- the Nikon D5 and Canon 1dx series. The race cars. But the great Canon race car doesn't make a Canon minivan any better than a Sony/Fuji/Olympus minivan.
3-- Momentum. Canon has been around a long time. Their current mount system is 30 years old. If you got your professional start 10-20 years ago, it was probably on Canon. And once you start, you don't switch generally.

Canon makes great cameras, and their system has many pros and cons. In the end though, every other system is just as good, but with different pros and cons. Image quality is an area where Canon has fallen behind, but they are starting to catch up. And we are really only talking microscopic differences. Some jpeg shooters really like Canon jpeg rendering. Sony/Nikon sensors have a noticeable raw shooting advantage with a great degree of ISO invariance.
Personally, my favorite thing about Canon is their lens lineup. Nikon is almost as good. Sony now has many lenses superior to Canon lenses, but Canon still has a much broader selection with better price points. I also like Canon's touch screen integration and their dual pixel AF.