Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[fractal]

I wouldn't call myself a snob, but my last gear changeover to all Nikon stuff (from Sony full frame, and Fuji) has really opened my eyes to all the compromises I was making by carrying mirrorless. Don't get me wrong, you can make beautiful images with the latest mirrorless options - Fractal is proof, and he's been shooting with a Nex-7 I think. But my mindset now is to take the very best I have available. When I shoot with the Df, it just works. Off camera flash - it just works. Focusing in non-existent light - just works. And when reviewing the files the IQ differences really stand out. This Df has produced some of the most gorgeous files I've ever seen and here's a newsflash - I'm the same mediocre photographer - so I know it's absolutely the equipment.

Sure the gear is a bit larger/heavier, but it's certainly not a burden. If you want a fast 70-200 equivalent for mirrorless, it's big. I had the 50-140 Fuji f/2.8 and the size was only slightly smaller than my current Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII. My overall bag size has actually lightened because I'm carrying fewer lenses.

Df looks like a great camera.

 

[havoc315]

@havoc315 I immediately thought of you when I read this article. Apparently, the Sony 36mp sensor requires DSLR type lenses (telecentric), much more so than the 24mp FF sensor. The new 42mp sensor does not require a telecentric design and can easily work with rangefinder type lenses. The A7r sent Sony down a path of needing larger FF lenses for mirrorless that they may never be able to change.


Sony’s Master plan – new 85, 24-70, 70-200 and more

"It’s all down to the A7R 36 megapixel sensor. This sensor, more so than the 24 megapixel full frame, requires a very telecentric lens design. That is, more like a DSLR lens, despite the slim A7 series body. In order to perform acceptably with this sensor, the FE lens range could not be designed to be as small as a rangefinder system equivalent, or to take full advantage of the 18mm mount to sensor distance.Brian Smith, whose images are great (not cheesy portraits) but whose technical info clearly comes via Sony PR, says this: “Mirrorless camera design has allowed Sony’s lens designers to place larger than normal lens element close to the body”. Actually, they don’t, as the design of the extenders will tell you. They’ve used a stronger degree of telephoto construction in the long zoom, allowing a smaller than normal rear element and they have taken measures to move it further away from the body – and this is a general trend. If you want to see what a properly small 85mm f/1.4 looks like try a Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f/1.4 ZE in Canon mount – 72mm filters not 82mm, 570g versus 850g and really solid all-metal manual focus. The mirrorless bodies do provide a zone from around 16mm to 42mm from the sensor surface which can accommodate the rear of the lens, and can’t ever be used on a DSLR. But Sony does not make full use of that and can not do so because of the microlens, filter layer and structural characteristics of the A7R sensor."

"All Sony FE lenses and all CZ independent FE lenses have been designed to work well with the A7R. The 28-70mm kit lens was not, but most owners find it acceptable. They could have made some of the lenses a fair amount smaller and lighter if the A7R had never existed. The A7RII is so tolerant towards short back focus, oblique ray angle imaging, that a whole different range of lenses could be designed for it… but never will be."

Interesting. A truly missed opportunity it seems.

Meanwhile, just got word that I should be getting my commlite Nikon-Sony adapter relatively soon. (should ship from Hong Kong this week). I'm primarily interested in the use of 3 adapted lenses: The 85/1.8, though it will lack VR. The Tamron 24-70/1.8 -- could be an interesting walk-around at times. And the Nikon 300/4, and 300/4 + 1.4 converter -- an interesting birding/sports option. I'll likely also test the Tamron 45/1.8 just to compare it to the SEL 50/1.8, when used on the same body.

 

[dmaxphil]

Thing is, we are making several different comparisons:
Mirrorless vs dslr
Full frame vs aps-c (though you also had full frame mirrorless)

Low light AF? A Nikon full frame dslr kicks butt. But you also weren't using the best mirrorless in that regard -- the a7rii and a7sii have much better los light AF than the a7ii.
The a7ii also uses an older sensor, and doesn't give the best IQ you can get from mirrorless.

Point is.... I think the differences are smaller than most people argue. It's difficult to draw direct comparisons when you are also using different lenses, different resolution sensors, etc.

I like to play with lots of systems and get a kick out of comparison shots - kinda like you Havoc In the last 6 months I have owned or borrowed a D750, Df, A6000, Canon 5D MIII, Fuji stuff, A7II, A7R, A7SII.

Playing with the D750 actually convinced me to go back to Nikon and a sweet trade deal popped up on the Df so I went that route. I borrowed the A7SII from a friend and it's plagued by the same mis focusing issues I experienced with every other mirrorless Sony I've used.

Sony focusing is highly accurate with eye/face detect but not using selectable point AF. Even in moderately low light, they hunt on most lenses, to the point of being a real burden.

If viewing at 100% on a high resolving monitor, the differences are pretty significant IMO, especially as available light declines. The DR of the D750 beats the pants off all the cameras above except the Df, where it (the d750) just barely gets the win. High ISO noise on the Df is unreal. There is no comparison on the other cameras I mentioned. D750 would be a close 2nd, with the Canon/Fuji a ways behind but ahead of the Sony. I was so close to switching to Canon, but a deal popped up on the Nikon. I consider them very similar in feature/benefits.

Having said that, when absolutely nailing focus with the Sony's, IQ was very good. The A7II + 90mm combo was probably the sharpest lens/camera combo I ever played with. It was all the other "stuff" that led me in a different direction. The final straw was continually having to switch the 90mm to manual focus to be able to get any shots of my daughter indoors. FYI, the A6000 had faster, but less accurate focusing than the other Sony's I've played with. Higher ISO noise out of the A6000 really stunk compared to pretty much every other system I've played with IMO. Yes, I'm comparing Crop vs FF which is not fair, but overall IQ and noise handling out of the Fuji was miles ahead (IMO) of the A6000. Of course crop vs FF goes back to the question of choosing what to carry and when. And at what cost!

Glad you're happy with your switch. Nikon cameras and lenses are certainly great -- I get great results as well. But putting aside price, I suspect if I was shooting a natural light portrait with an a7rii + 85 GM or Batis, the results would be equal or better than my Nikon.

To me, the clear advantages of Nikon: better flash system, better JPEG rendering, better AWB, more complete lens lineup, more affordable lens options.
Clear advantages of Sony -- far superior live view and LCD use, eye-AF and AF accuracy, superior video, some better in camera features (in camera panorama and HDR), EVF including full level.

So far so good. Change with me is never permanent. Certainly there are many great options for portraits in natural light. I'm 100% confident I could snap the same shot with any of the cameras mentioned here and on a 5x7 or even 8x10 and no one would notice any significant IQ differences.

 

[dmaxphil]

Df looks like a great camera.

What's funny is I almost bought a Df back when buying my A7II. I liked the layout of my X-T1 so I figured a Nikon with a similar manual control layout would be awesome. After playing for a bit in the store, my initial impression was that I hated it. Controls were kind of clumsy, Aperture dial was uncomfortable. And the body was clunky. I was recently offered a trade on one and I'm glad I agreed, the camera has really grown on me.

 

[dmaxphil]

Interesting. A truly missed opportunity it seems.

Meanwhile, just got word that I should be getting my commlite Nikon-Sony adapter relatively soon. (should ship from Hong Kong this week). I'm primarily interested in the use of 3 adapted lenses: The 85/1.8, though it will lack VR. The Tamron 24-70/1.8 -- could be an interesting walk-around at times. And the Nikon 300/4, and 300/4 + 1.4 converter -- an interesting birding/sports option. I'll likely also test the Tamron 45/1.8 just to compare it to the SEL 50/1.8, when used on the same body.

I'm really looking forward to hearing about your experience with the Commlite.

 

[havoc315]

I like to play with lots of systems and get a kick out of comparison shots - kinda like you Havoc In the last 6 months I have owned or borrowed a D750, Df, A6000, Canon 5D MIII, Fuji stuff, A7II, A7R, A7SII.

Playing with the D750 actually convinced me to go back to Nikon and a sweet trade deal popped up on the Df so I went that route. I borrowed the A7SII from a friend and it's plagued by the same mis focusing issues I experienced with every other mirrorless Sony I've used.

Sony focusing is highly accurate with eye/face detect but not using selectable point AF. Even in moderately low light, they hunt on most lenses, to the point of being a real burden.

If viewing at 100% on a high resolving monitor, the differences are pretty significant IMO, especially as available light declines. The DR of the D750 beats the pants off all the cameras above except the Df, where it (the d750) just barely gets the win. High ISO noise on the Df is unreal. There is no comparison on the other cameras I mentioned. D750 would be a close 2nd, with the Canon/Fuji a ways behind but ahead of the Sony. I was so close to switching to Canon, but a deal popped up on the Nikon. I consider them very similar in feature/benefits.

Having said that, when absolutely nailing focus with the Sony's, IQ was very good. The A7II + 90mm combo was probably the sharpest lens/camera combo I ever played with. It was all the other "stuff" that led me in a different direction. The final straw was continually having to switch the 90mm to manual focus to be able to get any shots of my daughter indoors. FYI, the A6000 had faster, but less accurate focusing than the other Sony's I've played with. Higher ISO noise out of the A6000 really stunk compared to pretty much every other system I've played with IMO. Yes, I'm comparing Crop vs FF which is not fair, but overall IQ and noise handling out of the Fuji was miles ahead (IMO) of the A6000. Of course crop vs FF goes back to the question of choosing what to carry and when. And at what cost!



So far so good. Change with me is never permanent. Certainly there are many great options for portraits in natural light. I'm 100% confident I could snap the same shot with any of the cameras mentioned here and on a 5x7 or even 8x10 and no one would notice any significant IQ differences.

The pixel peeped differences you're discussing.... Talking focus or sharpness? At high ISO or low ISO?

I never significantly shot with an A7 camera, but I will say the a99 was capable of being just as sharp as the d750 -- at ISO 1600 and lower. At higher ISO, the d750 progressively outpaces the a99.

I found the high ISO performance of the a6000 (and likely a6300) to approximately match any other regular asp-c sensor cameras. Fuji uses an entirely different sensor design and calculates ISO differently, so it's not readily comparable. As I said, I haven't really used a7 cameras, but testing puts the a7 and a7ii behind other full frame cameras in high ISO performance, including behind the a7rii and a7sii.

In regards to the accuracy of using other AF points... I intend to test the AF accuracy a bit further.

I do think the a6000 is one of the best aps-c cameras for the money. In full frame options, I think it's a lot greyer. Where the a6000 is faster than most aps-c cameras, the a7's are slower. Where the original a6000 is well priced, most of the a7 cameras and lenses are premium priced.

 

[dmaxphil]

The pixel peeped differences you're discussing.... Talking focus or sharpness? At high ISO or low ISO?

I never significantly shot with an A7 camera, but I will say the a99 was capable of being just as sharp as the d750 -- at ISO 1600 and lower. At higher ISO, the d750 progressively outpaces the a99.

I found the high ISO performance of the a6000 (and likely a6300) to approximately match any other regular asp-c sensor cameras. Fuji uses an entirely different sensor design and calculates ISO differently, so it's not readily comparable. As I said, I haven't really used a7 cameras, but testing puts the a7 and a7ii behind other full frame cameras in high ISO performance, including behind the a7rii and a7sii.

In regards to the accuracy of using other AF points... I intend to test the AF accuracy a bit further.

I do think the a6000 is one of the best aps-c cameras for the money. In full frame options, I think it's a lot greyer. Where the a6000 is faster than most aps-c cameras, the a7's are slower. Where the original a6000 is well priced, most of the a7 cameras and lenses are premium priced.

I'll disagree on the Fuji thought. I made comparisons where I took the Fuji ISO fudge factor out of the equation (same shutter speed, aperture, light) and it bested most of the Sonys. I think I posted some test shots here in the Fuji thread, but don't think the a6000 was a part of that specific test. In summary, A7SII > Fuji > A7II > A6000. Most times in these tests of equal settings, the Fuji was shooting at increased ISO and the images still came out looking better. I think I saved some on my Smug account, so will have to look.

Talking focus or sharpness? At high ISO or low ISO?

Not to oversimplify, but I'm talking putting camera in Auto ISO and spending a day shooting a variety of subjects in varying light from ISO 100 - 12800. Then at the end of the day, comparing overall quality of the pictures to include noise, % of shots in focus, etc.

 

[dmaxphil]

Oh and by the way, I didn't mean to ramble on about Nikon and Fuji gear in a Sony thread The point was to answer the question about what you would bring if you had to choose -mirrorless or full frame - which I never answered. My problem is I'm not good with these decisions. If I own multiple systems, I convince myself that I need to take them all with me during our trips. So I end up with 2 bags full of gear to deal with. Going to one system was a personal decision. It could have just as easily been Canon, Sony, Fuji, Pentax and I likely would have justified each in a similar fashion.

 

[fractal]

I'll disagree on the Fuji thought. I made comparisons where I took the Fuji ISO fudge factor out of the equation (same shutter speed, aperture, light) and it bested the most of the Sonys. I think I posted some test shots here in the Fuji thread, but don't think the a6000 was a part of that specific test. In summary, A7SII > Fuji > A7II > A6000. Most times in these tests of equal settings, the Fuji was shooting at increased ISO and the images still came out looking better. I think I save some on my Smug account, so will have to look.



Not to oversimplify, but I'm talking putting camera in Auto ISO and spending a day shooting a variety of subjects in varying light from ISO 100 - 12800. Then at the end of the day, comparing overall quality of the pictures to include noise, % of shots in focus, etc.

Fuji cheats! Cheats I tell you - only kidding.

I don't have a Fuji but I've seen comparisons. Like Nikon, Fuji seems to have a better JPEG engine than Sony. I also think they add a bit more sharpening to their "RAW" files and it's widely accepted (as you referred to) that they do cheat a little bit on their ISO scale.

I do believe, but can't prove, that you can get just as good of a file out of a Sony as a Fuji when Processing in RAW. Differences will be minute and come down to personal preferences. They both use Sony sensors after-all.

I've been accused of being a Sony "fan-boy" and I likely was; being an early adopter of large sensor mirrorless with the original NEX-3 and facing some DSLR "snobbery" did make me more defensive and loyal. It is certainly refreshing and a bit satisfying to see Sony's mirrorless line make Sony a much bigger force in the camera world than it was a mere 5-6 years ago. I believe the A6000 is the best selling ILC ever. Who would have put odds on that in 2011?

Currently I find myself at a crossroad. I certainly love the form factor of the Fujis but feel my next step is FF. I have no interest in Canon but am a bit intrigued with Nikon (despite highly valuing an EVF). I foresee myself going down a road similar to Adam; an aps-c kit (staying with Sony would be convenient and I love the 24mm 1.8) along with a FF kit. I'm eager to see what this year brings from Nikon regarding mirrorless, and I'm speculating that it will be coming and may be worth the wait.

 

[dmaxphil]

Fuji cheats! Cheats I tell you - only kidding.

I don't have a Fuji but I've seen comparisons. Like Nikon, Fuji seems to have a better JPEG engine than Sony. I also think they add a bit more sharpening to their "RAW" files and it's widely accepted (as you referred to) that they do cheat a little bit on their ISO scale.

I do believe, but can't prove, that you can get just as good of a file out of a Sony as a Fuji when Processing in RAW. Differences will be minute and come down to personal preferences. They both use Sony sensors after-all.

I've been accused of being a Sony "fan-boy" and I likely was; being an early adopter of large sensor mirrorless with the original NEX-3 and facing some DSLR "snobbery" did make me more defensive and loyal. It is certainly refreshing and a bit satisfying to see Sony's mirrorless line make Sony a much bigger force in the camera world than it was a mere 5-6 years ago. I believe the A6000 is the best selling ILC ever. Who would have put odds on that in 2011?

Currently I find myself at a crossroad. I certainly love the form factor of the Fujis but feel my next step is FF. I have no interest in Canon but am a bit intrigued with Nikon (despite highly valuing an EVF). I foresee myself going down a road similar to Adam; an aps-c kit (staying with Sony would be convenient and I love the 24mm 1.8) along with a FF kit. I'm eager to see what this year brings from Nikon regarding mirrorless, and I'm speculating that it will be coming and may be worth the wait.

There was nothing really special about Fuji files other than noise handling at highter iso. They're sooc color profiles are still my favorites. Also you could process files quite a bit and maintain good quality. If you shoot raw, I would probably completely avoid Fuji. Trying to get Raw converted files to look as good as sooc jpegs caused me quite a few gray hairs.

I've once or twice considered a nex-7/24mm combo based on your shots alone.

I guess I'll believe that Nikon is going to attempt to compete with Sony mirrorless when I see it.

 

[havoc315]

I'll let the images speak for themselves:


Hudson River by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Seagull watching another by Adam Brown, on Flickr

DSC00500.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

[dmaxphil]

I'll let the images speak for themselves:

What are they saying? Whats the ISO? Looks like focus worked out pretty good especially on the bird in flight.

 

[havoc315]

What are they saying? Whats the ISO? Looks like focus worked out pretty good especially on the bird in flight.

Focus was great... High number of keepers. Won't pretend I got every shot, but a high percentage.

I still hate the NR/JPEG compression. Even when I pixel peep low ISO shots-- I'm starting to think it's the JPEG compression from Sony. Turns pixels into mush.

But the focus is very impressive.

 

[fractal]

Focus was great... High number of keepers. Won't pretend I got every shot, but a high percentage.

I still hate the NR/JPEG compression. Even when I pixel peep low ISO shots-- I'm starting to think it's the JPEG compression from Sony. Turns pixels into mush.

But the focus is very impressive.

agree about the jpegs - the 10-18 is also weak at 10mm

 

[dmaxphil]

What type of size difference are we talking with the Sony 70-200/A6.3k combo and your Tamron 70-200/d750? I can sort of visualize it. I know the hood on the f/4 makes it look huge.

 

[fractal]

 

[havoc315]

What type of size difference are we talking with the Sony 70-200/A6.3k combo and your Tamron 70-200/d750? I can sort of visualize it. I know the hood on the f/4 makes it look huge.

Without the hoods, the Sony lens is slightly shorter. Weight of lenses is similar.... So combined with the camera body, the a6300 is a little lighter.
But remember, for telephoto uses, you're getting 50% more reach on the aps-c camera.
So for telephoto uses... At least outdoors... The a6300 combo has advantages.

 

[dmaxphil]

I like! Do you know this person? Otherwise it's a bit creepy lol

 

[havoc315]

agree about the jpegs - the 10-18 is also weak at 10mm

I didn't love my own composition but I thought the lens did ok.
I can't really judge landscapes without raw files-- I need to play with the DR.
But, I think the quality might be good enough to satisfy me for vacation landscape photos. Close enough that I'll take the size compromise over the d750 for low ISO landscapes.

 

[fractal]

I like! Do you know this person? Otherwise it's a bit creepy lol

lol! It's my 14 year old. Have to sneak shots these days.