Olympus quits camera business after 84 years

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,272
We've talked about Elon Musk and Tesla plenty of times in here. I don't see what the problem is. This is one article you can easily scroll past. Not every piece of tech news is for you.



Not to denigrate, but I'd say you're not looking much in the space then. Sony basically has had the top spot in mirrorless systems for about a decade. Now it's basically Canon and Sony at the top fighting for mirror-less which is basically the only segment that matters. DSLRs are dead. The Nikon D6 was DOA. And as powerful as the Canon 1DX III is, it's clearly the last of its kind (which is why the Canon R series is Canon's real future).
Nikon is still "there", but despite how powerful their Z6 and Z7 are, it's not selling nearly as well as Sony and Canon's competition.

For people just shooting straight photos, the major contenders are Canon, Sony, Fuji, and Nikon. (Which some niche cameras from manufacturers like Leica, Phase One, and Hasselblad).
If you're looking for hybrid systems though, then it's Canon, Sony, Panasonic, and Nikon. (With Fuji lagging and trying to enter the space).

I follow camera tech and industry news pretty closely. I would say despite Olympus closing, there is better and more competition than ever before. More options than ever before. And it's increasingly hard to "buy a bad camera".
Despite this, u4/3 has limited life in the future. The whole point of it was to have really small, really inexpensive cameras that were convenient and shot nice pictures for amateurs. This was more relevant when u4/3 started, because so much of the cost of digital cameras was originally in the size of the chip. That market as you noted is dying because of cell phones and increasing u4/3 features to keep up with people with s35 or FF frame sizes makes no sense as less of the cost of a camera is tied in sensor size. No soccer mom is spending $2000 on a GH5 and even if she could why wouldn't she rather use a full frame Sony A7III instead (for the same cost)? In other words Olympus just didn't have the resources to transition out to stay in the game. The only other major u4/3 player as I just noted is Panasonic, but even they know that their future is way more tied to their cameras like the S1 series (which are full frame) rather than anything else u4/3 that came before it.

So what am I saying in short? Olympus' writing was on the wall. They didn't have the resources or the foresight to get out of the markets they were in in order to compete with other players that consistently have stayed more relevant. When even the Japanese aren't buying your PEN system, you know it's bad. They had a good legacy. Hopefully there is another company like a Sony (which bought Minolta, and that is how they started their camera division) can buy Olympus and give them the cash infusion to make those changes. And then Olympus can live on. If another visionary company, like a Sony, doesn't or can't buy them, then frankly they need to die because they aren't relevant.

Sony buying Minolta was successful because Sony had the divisions and the resources to make that acquisition successful. They essentially took Minolta's mount and lenses and their engineers who do optical design and married them to their sensor department to engineer new systems that made sense in an increasingly digital age. Minolta themselves didn't have the resources to really create a successful digital camera. And Sony of course didn't have optical engineers or people who had experience designing camera bodies. So it made a lot of sense. Whoever buys Olympus (if they do) will have to solve Olympus' sensor size and tech issues as well as build out their tech (like much better auto-focus and the ability to shoot nice video) in addition to a myriad of other problems. They won't be able to just keep going with a cash infusion, they'll need real change like Minolta did.
I had absolutely no idea mirror less cameras were even a thing.

I have only ever been into SLR's and whenever I see photographers they are usually carrying SLR's.

But as I mentioned before, I've been away from the hobby for maybe 8 years now. Just haven't had time.
 
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
18
They haven't been a real serious contended in the camera business since the film era.

It's a shame, but its the way the world works. Smartphones have gotten so good at taking pictures that there is little reason for most people to own standalone cameras anymore. With that shrink in the market, the volume just isn't there to support as many competitors as before.

These days if you are buying a camera, you are likely either a professional or prosumer/hobbyist photographer buying a DSLR.

I can't help but wonder how far behind them Sony's Alpha line of cameras are.

I almost never see anyone who uses anything but Nikon or Canon anymore.
Lol, Sony's Alpha cameras are the leading mirrorless brand. Everything Canon and Nikon are doing on the mirrorless front is copying Sony. I used to shoot Canon exclusively (5d MK III plus L lenses) and sold $20k of equipment to switch to the Sony ecosystem with complete satisfaction. The video features of the Sony line are simply better than Canon and Nikon.

EDIT: That's what I get for replying before reading through the entire thread, I see this was already discussed. My apologies.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,245
EDIT: That's what I get for replying before reading through the entire thread, I see this was already discussed. My apologies.
Sony has everything... except DPAF and intuitive UIs. And color science.

Actually missing quite a bit more, for reasons unknown (like an actually pro camera, fleshed out flash system, quite a few lenses given that you need native lenses for full AF performance...)

What Sony really has is a lead in is sensor fabrication, and they're at least not trailing in terms of lens quality except for their cheapest lenses (Canon and Nikon can make great slower zooms, but Sony...).

There's a reason Samsung and Apple use Sony camera modules in their top-tier phones, and that technology from fabrication to signal processing to image processing does filter down to their larger sensors in spurts. Of course, that lead can only be maintained if Sony gets their shit together across the board. When Canon decides to stop buying Sony sensors for their sub-APS-C cameras, then it's on, and Canon is damn near there.

[Fuji, Panasonic, and Nikon exist on Sony's scraps; granted they're very nice scraps]
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,445
Sony has everything... except DPAF and intuitive UIs. And color science.
EDIT: DPAF is superior, but Sony's combined Phase and Contrast detect focus isn't a slouch. Enough that I would argue it isn't substantively different in terms of how good it works for the end-user.
I won't argue UI, but they get the job done. It's not as intuitive, but it's good enough.

This last one though, I strongly disagree about. Sony color is excellent. There is tons of stuff shot on Sony and it all looks great. Even my own work if I say so myself.
For RAW stills their cameras have some of the best dynamic range on any system. And even in compressed video S-Log is very well known, easy to work with, and gives great results with a minimum of fuss.

...But I'll continue this thought at the bottom...

Actually missing quite a bit more, for reasons unknown (like an actually pro camera, fleshed out flash system, quite a few lenses given that you need native lenses for full AF performance...)
If you're a pro, you don't want or need on camera flash unless you're in a very limited pro field such as photo journalism or possibly weddings (although I would advocate against this since it looks like ass). They do make flash systems though. And they're more than adequate. They also can use third party ones, so there isn't really an issue there.
Their lens system is more or less as complete as Nikon's. Not up to Canon EF level, but there is literally no other manufacture that is. Sony E has probably the second largest lens selection. So not sure what you're on about. To Canon's discredit, Sony has a far more built out system in Sony E than they do in Canon R. I haven't had want or need for a lens that Sony/Zeiss doesn't make themselves. Other than absurd specialty lenses that I wouldn't be able to get AF anyway even on their native system (such as Canon tilt-shift lenses).

What Sony really has is a lead in is sensor fabrication, and they're at least not trailing in terms of lens quality except for their cheapest lenses (Canon and Nikon can make great slower zooms, but Sony...).
Not sure what you mean here. The 70-200 f/2.8 GM is incredible. If you mean slower than f/2.8, lenses then their f/4.0 variants are also good. As is their slower 16-35mm f/4. As is the 24-105mm f/4.0. In fact all of their f/4 zooms I'd match up well to Canon zooms. However, most top pros don't care about this. If you mean the kit lenses and variable wide-open aperture lenses, I don't know of any that are good. On any system. But maybe my standards are too high.

There's a reason Samsung and Apple use Sony camera modules in their top-tier phones, and that technology from fabrication to signal processing to image processing does filter down to their larger sensors in spurts. Of course, that lead can only be maintained if Sony gets their shit together across the board. When Canon decides to stop buying Sony sensors for their sub-APS-C cameras, then it's on, and Canon is damn near there.
I realize this is contrary to what you're saying, but I was fairly sure that Canon makes all of their own sensors. Sony does provide sensors for Nikon though.

[Fuji, Panasonic, and Nikon exist on Sony's scraps; granted they're very nice scraps]
This is just commentary. Soooo sure? I don't personally see the need for market domination as necessary for getting a good camera. If I didn't shoot video, I'd happily be a Fuji shooter (or Phase One if I was a total baller). At the end of the day I only care about how my camera works (inside of its entire ecosystem). I don't necessarily care if the camera company I use is selling well to other people.

...

Here is what Sony is really missing, which to me isn't most of what you talked about: Processors. Sony has lagged behind on their imaging processors for a super long time. It wasn't as bad because Canon was also in the same boat (stuck on 8-bit until the 1DX II, which no one could afford except people at the top), but it's becoming more obvious now that basically all the competitors (including Canon) have finally caught up.
Sony constantly had overheating issues on earlier cameras so they had to come up with a bunch of hacks to prevent that from happening (such as dimming the screens in 4k). It also limits Sony's codecs. There isn't a Sony mirrorless camera capable of shooting 4k 10-bit 4:2:2. And it's likely processors that are holding back an A7S 3 from being released, because other cameras now shoot much nicer 4k because they have much better processors. The 1DX III is a monster in this regard, there is the Panasonic S1 series, Nikon Z6, Panasonic GH5, on down the line. If the A7s 3 can't do 4k 10-bit 4:2:2 at at least 200Mb/s in nicely compressed h.265 (or a higher bit rate in a more inefficient codec), then it will be a failure. And it's more or less very likely the reason they haven't released it after all this time because they're struggling with a processor that's fast enough to process that much data and not burn it self out, or have the worst battery life of all time. Or both.

So a lot of the Sony specs in the spec war fall on that one issue. That issue affects every other part of the camera in terms of processing. It affects AF, bit-rates, bit-depths, on down the line. The good news is I'm 100% sure they know this. Hence why the A7s 3 doesn't exist, because there can't be a product without this issue resolved. And after 5 years they still haven't cracked it.
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,272
Lol, Sony's Alpha cameras are the leading mirrorless brand. Everything Canon and Nikon are doing on the mirrorless front is copying Sony. I used to shoot Canon exclusively (5d MK III plus L lenses) and sold $20k of equipment to switch to the Sony ecosystem with complete satisfaction. The video features of the Sony line are simply better than Canon and Nikon.

EDIT: That's what I get for replying before reading through the entire thread, I see this was already discussed. My apologies.
This thread was literally the first time I had heard of mirrorless cameras. I've seen them in stores, but looked at their small aside and assumed they were probably some crappy point and shoot.

I'm curious, do any of them let me keep using my collection of Nikon F-Mount lenses?
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,445
This thread was literally the first time I had heard of mirrorless cameras. I've seen them in stores, but looked at their small aside and assumed they were probably some crappy point and shoot.

I'm curious, do any of them let me keep using my collection of Nikon F-Mount lenses?
Yes. You can buy Nikon's FTZ adapter and use all your glass "natively" on a Nikon Z6 or Z7. It of course is dependent on how old your F-mount glass is. It's only going to cover fully electronic versions of lenses, and not ones that require mechanical auto-focus. In other words, focus-by-wire only. I think that basically covers everything over the past 20 years or so. The link explicitly states every lens that is compatible. So you can check for yourself.

Edit: technically you could adapt them to any mirrorless system, but only on the Z will you get the best experience. Autofocus and other electronic controls won’t work as well on other systems. Which of course makes sense as Nikon knows their own systems.
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,272
Yes. You can buy Nikon's FTZ adapter and use all your glass "natively" on a Nikon Z6 or Z7. It of course is dependent on how old your F-mount glass is. It's only going to cover fully electronic versions of lenses, and not ones that require mechanical auto-focus. In other words, focus-by-wire only. I think that basically covers everything over the past 20 years or so. The link explicitly states every lens that is compatible. So you can check for yourself.

Edit: technically you could adapt them to any mirrorless system, but only on the Z will you get the best experience. Autofocus and other electronic controls won’t work as well on other systems. Which of course makes sense as Nikon knows their own systems.
That is both good news and a shame at the same time. There is a lot of really good older glass that requires a body focus motor. I have two, my 50mm f/1.4D and my 35-70 f/2.8D
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,445
That is both good news and a shame at the same time. There is a lot of really good older glass that requires a body focus motor. I have two, my 50mm f/1.4D and my 35-70 f/2.8D
Those haven't been compatible with basically any modern Nikon camera for a while. They dropped support even on dSLR's for at least a decade. Everything since the D700 for sure.
Still, a lot of those lenses can still find life if you want to use them as manual lenses for video. A lot of people buy old manual Nikon glass or old F glass and adapt them to cameras that have a shorter flange distance than F mount in order to build less expensive lens sets. Because they're not going to use AF anyway, and the focus rings require a longer throw (meaning they allow more fine focus adjustment), they're generally great for shooting film.
Otherwise if you want to shoot some film on a vintage camera that's probably the other major application. But I don't think anyone is using them outside of those use cases (unless you know, you're just shooting on a really old body or something).
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,245
It's only going to cover fully electronic versions of lenses, and not ones that require mechanical auto-focus. In other words, focus-by-wire only.
Nikon has plenty of 'G' and 'E' lenses that have autofocus clutches to their AF motors which will adapt seamlessly. That's actually most of them :).
EDIT: DPAF is superior, but Sony's combined Phase and Contrast detect focus isn't a slouch. Enough that I would argue it isn't substantively different in terms of how good it works for the end-user.
I'd say that Sony's system is superior for stills, primarily due to readout speeds (their fabrication advantage at work). It's holding video focus where DPAF has an advantage.
This last one though, I strongly disagree about. Sony color is excellent. There is tons of stuff shot on Sony and it all looks great. Even my own work if I say so myself.
For RAW stills their cameras have some of the best dynamic range on any system. And even in compressed video S-Log is very well known, easy to work with, and gives great results with a minimum of fuss.
I should have put a ;) on that one; mostly because it's so subjective, and it depends upon the content as well as the intended audience.
If you're a pro, you don't want or need on camera flash unless you're in a very limited pro field such as photo journalism or possibly weddings (although I would advocate against this since it looks like ass). They do make flash systems though. And they're more than adequate. They also can use third party ones, so there isn't really an issue there.
The difference between an adequate flash system and a good one is whether it can produce results in less than ideal conditions. Sony does produce some flash products, but they also fall short in terms of overall flexibility.
Their lens system is more or less as complete as Nikon's. Not up to Canon EF level, but there is literally no other manufacture that is. Sony E has probably the second largest lens selection. So not sure what you're on about. To Canon's discredit, Sony has a far more built out system in Sony E than they do in Canon R. I haven't had want or need for a lens that Sony/Zeiss doesn't make themselves. Other than absurd specialty lenses that I wouldn't be able to get AF anyway even on their native system (such as Canon tilt-shift lenses).
Sony can adapt lenses from other systems with varying degrees of success; Canon and Nikon can adapt their own DSLR lenses seamlessly. An EF lens is also an RF lens, but an A-mount lens is not an E-mount lens. Similar for Nikon, except that Nikon had an extensive line of lenses that used the focus motor in the camera body for autofocus, and Nikon hasn't released an adapter for those yet (but theoretically could).
Not sure what you mean here. The 70-200 f/2.8 GM is incredible. If you mean slower than f/2.8, lenses then their f/4.0 variants are also good. As is their slower 16-35mm f/4. As is the 24-105mm f/4.0. In fact all of their f/4 zooms I'd match up well to Canon zooms. However, most top pros don't care about this. If you mean the kit lenses and variable wide-open aperture lenses, I don't know of any that are good. On any system. But maybe my standards are too high.
The 70-200/2.8 is notorious for not living up to the promise of its optical formula, owing to Sony's ability to design a lens that they could not mass produce ;). Their 70-200/4 isn't much better. Both are about as good as the relatively ancient Canon EF versions, and fall behind Nikon's F-mount releases. The 16-35/4 is plauged by centering issues, while the 24-70/4 and 28-70 are... mediocre. The 24-105/4 is the one high point, and is priced and sized to match.

The thing about slower zooms is that they're also lighter and smaller. I can afford a full f/2.8 (or f/2.0 for Canon) kit, but I prefer the smaller and lighter stuff because I like to travel; that's partly due to size and weight, and partly because said lenses stick out less.
I realize this is contrary to what you're saying, but I was fairly sure that Canon makes all of their own sensors. Sony does provide sensors for Nikon though.
For their DSLRs and MILC, yes. For their point-and-shoots? Everything up to 1" comes from Sony, Canon's copies of the RX100 being the most obvious.
Here is what Sony is really missing, which to me isn't most of what you talked about: Processors.
The fun part here is that this is just a choice: Sony has access to the best processors available. They even make phones that are generations more advanced than anything that goes into a camera!
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,272
Those haven't been compatible with basically any modern Nikon camera for a while. They dropped support even on dSLR's for at least a decade. Everything since the D700 for sure.
Still, a lot of those lenses can still find life if you want to use them as manual lenses for video. A lot of people buy old manual Nikon glass or old F glass and adapt them to cameras that have a shorter flange distance than F mount in order to build less expensive lens sets. Because they're not going to use AF anyway, and the focus rings require a longer throw (meaning they allow more fine focus adjustment), they're generally great for shooting film.
Otherwise if you want to shoot some film on a vintage camera that's probably the other major application. But I don't think anyone is using them outside of those use cases (unless you know, you're just shooting on a really old body or something).
Huh.


I rememeber having an in-body focus motor was an absolute requirement for me when considering my next body.

I guess I dropped out of the hobby just in time.

The old adage used to be that if you have to spend money, send it on lenses, because they last forever and keep their value much better than electronics.

I guess that isn't the case anymore. Shame.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,245
I rememeber having an in-body focus motor was an absolute requirement for me when considering my next body.
Those are still in all of the Nikon D7xxx and better DSLRs (all of the ones that aren't built like toys). Have their advantages and disadvantages in my opinion.
The old adage used to be that if you have to spend money, send it on lenses, because they last forever and keep their value much better than electronics.
That's... actually still true. It doesn't mean that lenses don't also depreciate though. We've gone from ~12MP being 'a lot' to ~60MP being 'a lot', and that isn't the limit. 32MP APS-C sensors (current Canon) also stress optics quite a bit, and as well, smaller pixels mean that diffraction softening is visible at far wider apertures. Current high resolution bodies start losing acuity at f/5.6!

Couple of other things to consider: there's a trend toward lighter weight kit, seen from top to bottom. Canon and Nikon, for example, have cut the weight in their premiere telephoto lenses (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4...) in half from their first AF versions for film bodies till now. Higher resolution sensors mean that AF precision requirements have gone way up, requiring advancements throughout the capability stack, including with AF motors. And video has brought a requirement for smooth AF motors as well. You can see how the 'screwdriver' linkage that Nikon and Minolta (and then Sony) used became a bit dated!
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,445
I should have put a ;) on that one; mostly because it's so subjective, and it depends upon the content as well as the intended audience.
Basically a good colorist can make anything look like anything. But I've heard numerous people say (in other words, people's opinions that are not mine) that they consider the FS7 (as an example) to have a color and look similar to Arri. So that already is a great place to start. And Sony has a long history in digital cinema. And to add another cherry on there, the A7S2 is a Netflix approved camera.
The long and the short is yeah it's subjective, but I think most people that are reasonable and in the industry that might have their "preference" still won't have an "issue" with they way Sony looks or works.

The 70-200/2.8 is notorious for not living up to the promise of its optical formula, owing to Sony's ability to design a lens that they could not mass produce ;). Their 70-200/4 isn't much better. Both are about as good as the relatively ancient Canon EF versions, and fall behind Nikon's F-mount releases. The 16-35/4 is plauged by centering issues, while the 24-70/4 and 28-70 are... mediocre. The 24-105/4 is the one high point, and is priced and sized to match.
Man, did you rent all these lenses or where are you reading this stuff? I haven't heard anyone say anything terrible essentially on all of Sony's zooms that are competing with Canon.
One of my favorite people to watch because I'm learning from him and emulating his style is Philip Bloom. He uses Sony zooms all day and I haven't seen a bad one to look at. (Most notably the 70-200mm GM, and 100-400 GM, but he also often uses the 16-35mm GM).

Sony can adapt lenses from other systems with varying degrees of success; Canon and Nikon can adapt their own DSLR lenses seamlessly. An EF lens is also an RF lens, but an A-mount lens is not an E-mount lens. Similar for Nikon, except that Nikon had an extensive line of lenses that used the focus motor in the camera body for autofocus, and Nikon hasn't released an adapter for those yet (but theoretically could).
Sure. The Sigma EF set basically all works seamlessly with the Sigma MC-11 adapter on Sony, or just directly the Sigma E-mount lenses. There is also other third parties such as Tamron for E-Mount.
However I was just talking about Sony's lenses themselves. Not Sony + third parties. In other words, I'd say what Sony makes directly is comparable to what Nikon makes directly. And Sony is definitely ahead on lenses when only considering native mirror-less lenses. EF to R, yes is possible, but far from ideal and missing a lot of the advantages of using a mirrorless body. Shorter flange distance allows for way more precise digital lens design, so it's not primarily about lens size. It's like the difference between PL and the new shorter flange digital PL.

However there is also an A mount to E mount adapter. And it works fine.

The thing about slower zooms is that they're also lighter and smaller. I can afford a full f/2.8 (or f/2.0 for Canon) kit, but I prefer the smaller and lighter stuff because I like to travel; that's partly due to size and weight, and partly because said lenses stick out less.
I understand and agree. This is why I don't use their GM primes, I use their lens set below that, because size and weight matter to me (especially for gimbal work on video) and 2/3 a stop doesn't. Which also I might add are incredibly excellent lenses. After moving to Sony from Canon, I found I'm not in fact missing any lens really.

The fun part here is that this is just a choice: Sony has access to the best processors available. They even make phones that are generations more advanced than anything that goes into a camera!
I think it's a bigger problem than that. And I see the same issue in their cinema cameras. They haven't been able to produce chips that are nearly as flexible as other systems. Whether that's a problem with ability or something else I'm unsure. But it's "obvious" to me that the A7III as an example should have been their first 10-bit camera. And the FX9 should have had internal RAW capability, just as some examples. And the Sony A7s3 should have been launched at least 2 years ago.


Huh.

I rememeber having an in-body focus motor was an absolute requirement for me when considering my next body.

I guess I dropped out of the hobby just in time.
Well then you were aware that there already was a line in the sand. And that focus motor compatibility was going away.
But in terms of tech, focus motors were just a Nikon stop gap. Looking back, Canon did the more "severe" move by making a new electronic mount and not bothering with Focus motors (in other words they dropped Canon FD mount and made Canon EF mount). And Nikon spent time being "gentle" with the transition to allow people to use their older lenses for much longer (keeping manual F mount and creating electronic F mount on top of it). Eventually even Nikon knew it had to give those lenses up to have a better focusing system. And Canon was proved right when EF dropped even though it forced people to have to sell all of their FD mount lenses upsetting a lot of pros. So that's some late 80's to early 90's history for you. But you can read way more in depth about how AF more or less changed the industry. And then how digital did it again. And now how mirrorless is doing it again. In short, substantive changes to technology will always disrupt things.

The old adage used to be that if you have to spend money, send it on lenses, because they last forever and keep their value much better than electronics.

I guess that isn't the case anymore. Shame.
It's still there in the sense that a line of glass is much longer supported than bodies. But even you must recognize that the transition from manual only to AF glass meant basically entire systems and lens sets aren't and haven't been compatible across a large range of manufacturers. I can name probably 5-6 systems that aren't compatible with any modern cameras. Anything made in the 80's or before essentially with the notable exception of Leica, who still don't use AF in their M-Series bodies. But they are a notable exception.

The "adage" is still true to the same degree it was before. It's just a 20 year or so cycle versus a lifetime. The truth is though, at this point no person can say they spent their entire lifetime career shooting only digital. Because you're either old enough that you were shooting film at some point or you're born later and you're in the first half of your career shooting digital.
So digital is a very different time. So far for all the major manufacturers there has been the transition to dSLR and again to mirrorless. I can't tell the future, but I can say that unless there is another major upset, we'll be shooting these system for a long time.

As an example, I don't think Sony E-Mount is likely to go away during my entire career unless Sony itself ceases to be a company.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,272
Those are still in all of the Nikon D7xxx and better DSLRs (all of the ones that aren't built like toys). Have their advantages and disadvantages in my opinion.

That's... actually still true. It doesn't mean that lenses don't also depreciate though. We've gone from ~12MP being 'a lot' to ~60MP being 'a lot', and that isn't the limit. 32MP APS-C sensors (current Canon) also stress optics quite a bit, and as well, smaller pixels mean that diffraction softening is visible at far wider apertures. Current high resolution bodies start losing acuity at f/5.6!

Couple of other things to consider: there's a trend toward lighter weight kit, seen from top to bottom. Canon and Nikon, for example, have cut the weight in their premiere telephoto lenses (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4...) in half from their first AF versions for film bodies till now. Higher resolution sensors mean that AF precision requirements have gone way up, requiring advancements throughout the capability stack, including with AF motors. And video has brought a requirement for smooth AF motors as well. You can see how the 'screwdriver' linkage that Nikon and Minolta (and then Sony) used became a bit dated!

Jesus.


What is even the use case for a 60MP camera?

My 12MP D90 was always more resolution wise than I needed.

I mean, display on a 4K screen is just about 8.3MP. 12MP gave me enough resolution to do some crops after the fact to get my framing right if I messed it up in the moment and still have plenty of resolution left over to look good on screen and in print.

To me what I always wanted more of was not resolution, but rather high ISO low noise performance so I could shoot better in the dark. That's why I was looking into the D700 before I just stopped, for the full frame sensor.

I don't know if this is still the case, but at the time Nikon had MUCH better low noise sensors at high ISO than Canon did.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,245
What is even the use case for a 60MP camera?
Well, my cameras are all in the 18MP to 24MP range, and I find that I could use quite a bit more resolution. Another thing to note is that resolution isn't 1:1, as color filters are used and each 'pixel' on a camera sensor only represents luminance for one color channel out of three (Red / Green / Blue). Many sensors (fewer now) also include an anti-aliasing filter that is essentially a blur filter in the stack on top of the sensor, which has a blur function that's fairly predictable and is why default sharpening is usually set well above zero.This filter also helps prevent moire, which is also less prevalent as sensor size increases.

On the other hand, most 'pro' cameras, including Sony's imitation of such, have lower-resolution sensors. This is partly for higher-ISO and lower per-pixel noise, and partly because pro work encompases work with quick turnarounds, including using in-camera JPEGs.
To me what I always wanted more of was not resolution, but rather high ISO low noise performance so I could shoot better in the dark. That's why I was looking into the D700 before I just stopped, for the full frame sensor.

I don't know if this is still the case, but at the time Nikon had MUCH better low noise sensors at high ISO than Canon did.
This has improved across the board. It's actually something that Canon focused on before they went after dynamic range (that is, noise in shadows at ISO100). Can't really fault any make for their high-ISO performance, and it's more of a question of whether you like a particular cameras output. My 6D for example, which is now an eight year old camera, can focus in the dark (also important!) and is clean enough to use for web work at ISO 25,600. The pro bodies go much, much higher. Also, noise reduction approaches have advanced considerably.
Basically a good colorist can make anything look like anything. But I've heard numerous people say (in other words, people's opinions that are not mine) that they consider the FS7 (as an example) to have a color and look similar to Arri. So that already is a great place to start. And Sony has a long history in digital cinema. And to add another cherry on there, the A7S2 is a Netflix approved camera.
The long and the short is yeah it's subjective, but I think most people that are reasonable and in the industry that might have their "preference" still won't have an "issue" with they way Sony looks or works.
I'd argue that so long as some care was taken at capture, this is more or less true. At the same time, Sony has changed their color science generation to generation to address criticism; a big one is skin tones, one that Canon seems to get the best. I've seen plenty of semi-pros / advanced amateurs go back to Canon due to the ease of capturing a variety of skin tones without needing a lot of post work. I'll admit that this may be PEBCAK, but it's compelling enough to make the case and for Sony to attempt to address.

Man, did you rent all these lenses or where are you reading this stuff? I haven't heard anyone say anything terrible essentially on all of Sony's zooms that are competing with Canon.
One of my favorite people to watch because I'm learning from him and emulating his style is Philip Bloom. He uses Sony zooms all day and I haven't seen a bad one to look at. (Most notably the 70-200mm GM, and 100-400 GM, but he also often uses the 16-35mm GM).
Borrowed, rented, read... quite a bit of curfuffle with the 70-200GM as it seemd to fall apart at closer focusing distances and fell far short on test benches with respect to where Sony had expected it to based on their design. The 100-400 GM and 16-35 GM are as good as any other, while I believe the 24-70 GM is class-leading due to Sony's work with aspherics and handling the rendering of out-of-focus highlights well.

But the 16-35/4, 24-70/4, and 35/1.4, among the opening salvo of lenses, fell well short of what the first A7r could do with its 36MP sensor. Those that were looking for full resolution were adapting the Canon versions before Sony produced their own; stuff like landscape work and so on.
Sure. The Sigma EF set basically all works seamlessly with the Sigma MC-11 adapter on Sony
...sort of. There are limitations here, including limitations with Sigma's 'ported' lenses. No adapted lenses or third-party lenses work as well as native E-mount lenses. But a Sigma DSLR EF-mount lens on an EOS R with adapter? Seamless.

EF to R, yes is possible, but far from ideal and missing a lot of the advantages of using a mirrorless body.
Aside from a potential shorter flange distance and lighter weight, there are no other advantages. The only thing Canon did was add provisions for more controls on lenses. DSLR EF-mount lenses are native on EOS R cameras. This is not the case with Sony, they pretty much rat-fucked their A- to E-mount adapters, and failed to produce one with a screw-drive motor that used the camera's stabilization. Which remains a pretty big omission given how dated much of Sony's A-mount lineup was when they switched to E-mount!
I understand and agree. This is why I don't use their GM primes, I use their lens set below that, because size and weight matter to me (especially for gimbal work on video) and 2/3 a stop doesn't. Which also I might add are incredibly excellent lenses. After moving to Sony from Canon, I found I'm not in fact missing any lens really.
I've contemplated a move repeatedly. In some cases just for the lenses. Main thing that has stopped me is that Sony isn't interested in well-supporting APS-C alongside full-frame and that I didn't want to deal with their ergonomics, UI, RAW file asshattery (they still don't have lossless compression like everyone else has used for the past two decades), and general processing quirks from mixing systems. If anything, I've been interested in an A7r II for adapting to Canon glass for my wife's product / food photography work, and I'd like an A6000-series to replace my EOS M5, if Sony ever bothered to actually make a suitable A6000 camera and lenses.
I think it's a bigger problem than that. And I see the same issue in their cinema cameras. They haven't been able to produce chips that are nearly as flexible as other systems. Whether that's a problem with ability or something else I'm unsure. But it's "obvious" to me that the A7III as an example should have been their first 10-bit camera. And the FX9 should have had internal RAW capability, just as some examples. And the Sony A7s3 should have been launched at least 2 years ago.
Really has to be an ROI thing. Just like Canon has taken forever to update their sensor fabs, Nikon took forever to commit to mirrorless, and so on, none of these companies are really going all-out in terms of technology investment and product development. Sony could do an end-run with their next release line if they build 5D / D800 class bodies, unfuck the UIs, use the A99's ergonomics, and drop some coin on the processor so that both speed and battery life are an order of magnitude ahead.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,445
I'd argue that so long as some care was taken at capture, this is more or less true. At the same time, Sony has changed their color science generation to generation to address criticism; a big one is skin tones, one that Canon seems to get the best. I've seen plenty of semi-pros / advanced amateurs go back to Canon due to the ease of capturing a variety of skin tones without needing a lot of post work. I'll admit that this may be PEBCAK, but it's compelling enough to make the case and for Sony to attempt to address.
Sure. I've been shooting on an A7RII and an a6500, so not the latest and greatest, I would say that gen doesn't have any issues and I happily place them side by side with anything Canon skin tones put out.

The FS7 was class leading in 2015, but people still complained to one degree or another about skin, but after seeing for myself all the work made on FS7's in general, I feel like it was unfounded (basically the red channel didn't have as much range and really saturated tones could get pushed to magenta. Which, yes could cause some problems but the vast majority of the times does not). The FX9 has literally nothing color wise to complain about. And I don't have an issue in general on either of my bodies.

Canon has a "look" too, and it's not exactly accurate. If you really like out of body jpeg looks and you want to have warm tones than Canon is your company. But I shoot RAW and jpegs don't matter at all. To that end if you want to see a really good comparison as well as working with files from both Sony and Canon, I recommend this Sean Tucker video here:
In short, I keep my position. There are complainers, but their complaints are unfounded. It's more perception than reality.

Borrowed, rented, read... quite a bit of curfuffle with the 70-200GM as it seemd to fall apart at closer focusing distances and fell far short on test benches with respect to where Sony had expected it to based on their design. The 100-400 GM and 16-35 GM are as good as any other, while I believe the 24-70 GM is class-leading due to Sony's work with aspherics and handling the rendering of out-of-focus highlights well.

But the 16-35/4, 24-70/4, and 35/1.4, among the opening salvo of lenses, fell well short of what the first A7r could do with its 36MP sensor. Those that were looking for full resolution were adapting the Canon versions before Sony produced their own; stuff like landscape work and so on.
The 35 GM has been known to have build issues, but it's precisely that, build issues. If you can get one without de-centering it's great, but the problem is the process variation on it is too high. The 50 GM and 85 GM don't have that. Not sure if the 35 ever got fixed, but its bad reputation is cemented.
As far as all the other lenses, everything I've seen has been good. I don't own one yet, but I'd happily shoot on a 70-200GM all day.

...sort of. There are limitations here, including limitations with Sigma's 'ported' lenses. No adapted lenses or third-party lenses work as well as native E-mount lenses. But a Sigma DSLR EF-mount lens on an EOS R with adapter? Seamless.
Everything comes down to how recent the electronics, but based upon the testing of other people, Sigma EF to E with MC-11 seems pretty bulletproof. Even in getting eye-focus detection in video.
But I don't have a dog in the fight anyway. I don't particularly like Sigma glass. As I'd rather have more character than straight acuity or sharpness or even perceived sharpness. That isn't to say that Sony/Zeiss glass isn't sharp. It's way more sharp already than I'll ever need. It's just that Sigma glass weighs sharpness above everything else including size and weight, and I don't like Sigma's compromises compared to other compromises.

Aside from a potential shorter flange distance and lighter weight, there are no other advantages. The only thing Canon did was add provisions for more controls on lenses. DSLR EF-mount lenses are native on EOS R cameras. This is not the case with Sony, they pretty much rat-fucked their A- to E-mount adapters, and failed to produce one with a screw-drive motor that used the camera's stabilization. Which remains a pretty big omission given how dated much of Sony's A-mount lineup was when they switched to E-mount!
I honestly don't have a dog in that fight either. I came over in 2017. All A-series camera bodies and lenses could explode at this point and it wouldn't affect me at all. However, even to your discrediting Sony, that adapter existed more than half a decade before the R and the Z came along so if we're honest, Sony did quite well with the tech they had for the time. And making another A-mount adapter at this point wouldn't really serve their customer base as no one is really on A-mount anymore anyway. It served its purpose at the time, expand E while transitioning A.

Also as an aside flange distance is probably the most important reason to be on mirrorless. Not because you can adapt anything on the bodies, but shorter distances mean much higher tolerances, meaning much better acuity. Something you were talking about with Zarathustra above. There is a reason why Arri after using Arri PL for 50 years or whatever it was designed their new PL mount: "LPL", specifcally for digital cameras in tandem with their Signature Primes. It in short means much better images. So, using EF lenses on Canon R isn't ideal not because of some adapter, but because the lens designs can be improved a significant amount by shorter flange distance. Which is why basically every L-series lens for Canon R is blowing it's EF counterpart out of the water. Yes, part of it is more recent tech, but most of the increases in quality are coming as a result of lens designs that use a shorter flange distance. Canon engineers also acknowledged this here before they launched the Canon R camera: https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/an...n-explains-why-larger-mount-diameter-matters/
Summary: saying it's "just flange distance" is kind of missing the most important mirrorless advantage, which is not being able to adapt more lenses, it's being able to design significantly better ones that require less correction.

I've contemplated a move repeatedly. In some cases just for the lenses. Main thing that has stopped me is that Sony isn't interested in well-supporting APS-C alongside full-frame and that I didn't want to deal with their ergonomics, UI, RAW file asshattery (they still don't have lossless compression like everyone else has used for the past two decades), and general processing quirks from mixing systems. If anything, I've been interested in an A7r II for adapting to Canon glass for my wife's product / food photography work, and I'd like an A6000-series to replace my EOS M5, if Sony ever bothered to actually make a suitable A6000 camera and lenses.
This I agree with, Sony doesn't put their full weight behind APSC even though they could. But if you want fully supported APSC, then I'd argue you should just move to Fuji, which has fantastic glass and APSC sensor size.
Still, I'm more than happy with the A6500 (and probably A6600 if I ever bother to get one, which I likely won't) for video. But honestly, if you have the money I'd rather just go Sony FF anyway, despite being bigger, it's not that much bigger. All my glass other than the 10-18mm f/4 is all FF anyway. And my bag of primes is very small and lightweight. I am more than satisfied to shoot on say the 55mm f/1.8 all day.
I happily shot RAW on the a6500 when it was my only camera. I personally didn't run into any of its limitations. Obviously with compressed RAW it can have issues, so if you really feel like you need uncompressed 14-bit, then definitely get something else. However in practice I found that 14-bit compressed RAW didn't really give me any problems. And I was more than happy with the filesizes. I just shot a 550 or so frame time lapse on the a6500 and it was only 12GB's in total. I'm sure, especially in movie form, that 14-bit versus compressed 14-bit won't matter, but the file savings definitely will.

Really has to be an ROI thing. Just like Canon has taken forever to update their sensor fabs, Nikon took forever to commit to mirrorless, and so on, none of these companies are really going all-out in terms of technology investment and product development. Sony could do an end-run with their next release line if they build 5D / D800 class bodies, unfuck the UIs, use the A99's ergonomics, and drop some coin on the processor so that both speed and battery life are an order of magnitude ahead.
Sure. And they should. The Panasonic S1H is eating Sony's A7s3 lunch. Yeah it's more expensive than the A7s2 ever was, but it's also way more future thinking and feature packed. It was a massive mistake by Sony to allow a competitor to beat them to the punch (and now the S1H is Netflix approved....). Especially considering that the president of Sony's camera division accurately predicted with both Canon and Nikon would enter the mirrorless marketplace. In other words, they know better.
Even at $3500, they should have gotten it done. I'd wager even at $4000-$4500 they should have gotten it done just to have the halo product in the market. Even if they had to call it an a9 mark 3 just to justify the price. They should have a camera capable at minimum of of 10-bit (and also RAW output over HDMI at at least 12-bit).
 
Last edited:

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,672
Jesus.


What is even the use case for a 60MP camera?

My 12MP D90 was always more resolution wise than I needed.

I mean, display on a 4K screen is just about 8.3MP. 12MP gave me enough resolution to do some crops after the fact to get my framing right if I messed it up in the moment and still have plenty of resolution left over to look good on screen and in print.

To me what I always wanted more of was not resolution, but rather high ISO low noise performance so I could shoot better in the dark. That's why I was looking into the D700 before I just stopped, for the full frame sensor.

I don't know if this is still the case, but at the time Nikon had MUCH better low noise sensors at high ISO than Canon did.
A d800 (36 MP) has much lower noise than a d90 and the d850 has lower noise than the D800 (and more pixels too). They're not mutually exclusive. I don't see much need for 60mp, but I don't know that it hurts much either and there are plenty of newer cameras that are in the 24mp range.
One nice thing about those extra pixels is that if you don't have time to change to a tighter lens, you can crop a ton and still have plenty of Pixels.
The d90 was great in its day, but it's even the cheapest Nikon DSLRs have better IQ and lower noise than the 90.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,272
A d800 (36 MP) has much lower noise than a d90 and the d850 has lower noise than the D800 (and more pixels too). They're not mutually exclusive. I don't see much need for 60mp, but I don't know that it hurts much either and there are plenty of newer cameras that are in the 24mp range.
One nice thing about those extra pixels is that if you don't have time to change to a tighter lens, you can crop a ton and still have plenty of Pixels.
The d90 was great in its day, but it's even the cheapest Nikon DSLRs have better IQ and lower noise than the 90.
Hmm. All this talk has me considering looking at what the cheapest full frame sensor Nikon with a body focus motor costs these days....
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,272
A d800 (36 MP) has much lower noise than a d90 and the d850 has lower noise than the D800 (and more pixels too). They're not mutually exclusive. I don't see much need for 60mp, but I don't know that it hurts much either and there are plenty of newer cameras that are in the 24mp range.
One nice thing about those extra pixels is that if you don't have time to change to a tighter lens, you can crop a ton and still have plenty of Pixels.
The d90 was great in its day, but it's even the cheapest Nikon DSLRs have better IQ and lower noise than the 90.
What are your thoughts on the D610?

That thing is on sale for $899 on Nikon's webpage right now. Norma price is apparently $1,599. They are either in serious trouble, or that "normal" full price isnt a real price and is just there for marketing purposes.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,245
Also as an aside flange distance is probably the most important reason to be on mirrorless. Not because you can adapt anything on the bodies, but shorter distances mean much higher tolerances, meaning much better acuity. Something you were talking about with Zarathustra above. There is a reason why Arri after using Arri PL for 50 years or whatever it was designed their new PL mount: "LPL", specifcally for digital cameras in tandem with their Signature Primes. It in short means much better images. So, using EF lenses on Canon R isn't ideal not because of some adapter, but because the lens designs can be improved a significant amount by shorter flange distance. Which is why basically every L-series lens for Canon R is blowing it's EF counterpart out of the water. Yes, part of it is more recent tech, but most of the increases in quality are coming as a result of lens designs that use a shorter flange distance. Canon engineers also acknowledged this here before they launched the Canon R camera: https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/an...n-explains-why-larger-mount-diameter-matters/
Summary: saying it's "just flange distance" is kind of missing the most important mirrorless advantage, which is not being able to adapt more lenses, it's being able to design significantly better ones that require less correction.
Sony has the narrowest flanges of them all ;)

What are your thoughts on the D610?

That thing is on sale for $899 on Nikon's webpage right now. Norma price is apparently $1,599. They are either in serious trouble, or that "normal" full price isnt a real price and is just there for marketing purposes.
This is... still overpriced, but if you needed a body today, it'd do. I'd recommend starting at the D750 though, as the D600/D610 are about as stripped down as it gets, and their AF system is 'minimal'.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,272
This is... still overpriced, but if you needed a body today, it'd do. I'd recommend starting at the D750 though, as the D600/D610 are about as stripped down as it gets, and their AF system is 'minimal'.
What about it is minimal? Just the number of AF points? The 750 has 51, the 610 has 39. The D90 has 11, and I was able to do just fine with that. Or is there something else like the ability to low light focus? I remember my D90 got much better at it when I added my flash unit. I think there was an IR focus assist in the flash, but I can't remember.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,445
What about it is minimal? Just the number of AF points? The 750 has 51, the 610 has 39. The D90 has 11, and I was able to do just fine with that. Or is there something else like the ability to low light focus? I remember my D90 got much better at it when I added my flash unit. I think there was an IR focus assist in the flash, but I can't remember.
Cameras are more than their specs. Just for "age" reference, the D610 was launched in 2013, the D750 in 2014. And the successor, the D780 just launched this year.
I'm not a big Nikon guy, but knowing what I know I'd likely skip all of these and buy a Z6. If I had to buy a DSLR, I'd probably look at a used D810 (also 2014, but as a more or less flagship camera it's aged much better than the lower down models). 36MP isn't "necessary" but with modern machines and modern hard-drives, file size and image processing is no longer a problem like it was back in 2012 when the D800 and A7R dropped.
The big reason for an 810 is the massive dynamic range and leading ergonomics, and just general speed. It trades favorably versus basically all other cameras and the D850 basically was evolutionary rather than revolutionary. It has no AA filter, which I look at as an extreme advantage to other cameras in its class. Here is the list of benefits from Wikipedia over its predecessor the D800:

"Compared to the former D800/D800E[1] it offers an image sensor with a base sensitivity of ISO 64 and extended range of ISO 32 to 51,200, an Expeed processor with noise reduction with claimed 1 stop noise improvement, doubled buffer size, increased frame rate and extended battery life, improved autofocus – now similar to the D4S, improved video with 1080p 60 fps and many software improvements."

Basically, the D810 is probably way more camera than anyone needs even 6 years on, but it can be found for pennies on the dollar. A quick look on eBay shows I could get one today with BIN (which of course is more expensive than bidding) for about $1000. The D750 is going for around $800 on eBay with BIN. The D610 for about $600 BIN. I would still avoid those two lower costed options unless saving money was the absolute paramount.
To reiterate though, I'd probably try to stretch and just buy a Z6 and an FTZ adapter. My opinion. Better tech, and it's Nikon's future.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,245
Or is there something else like the ability to low light focus?
Basically this. The D610 uses a pretty antiquated system that struggles in lower light. They gave the D750 a better one, and it's generally worth the upgrade.

[The D800 had this issue too, which was even more egregious with its higher resolution sensor; it's something that all DSLRs seemed to struggle with for a while, and I'd posit that one of the reasons for the move to mirrorless has been that all focusing happens at the focus plane, as opposed to being handled by a separate system that could suffer from calibration issues]
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,245
Basically, the D810 is probably way more camera than anyone needs even 6 years on, but it can be found for pennies on the dollar. A quick look on eBay shows I could get one today with BIN (which of course is more expensive than bidding) for about $1000. Still, I'd probably try to stretch and just buy a Z6 and an FTZ adapter. My opinion.
I'd toss that one to ergonomics, really more up to the user.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,272
Cameras are more than their specs. Just for "age" reference, the D610 was launched in 2013, the D750 in 2014. And the successor, the D780 just launched this year.
I'm not a big Nikon guy, but knowing what I know I'd likely skip all of these and buy a Z6. If I had to buy a DSLR, I'd probably look at a used D810 (also 2014, but as a more or less flagship camera it's aged much better than the lower down models). 36MP isn't "necessary" but with modern machines and modern hard-drives, file size and image processing is no longer a problem like it was back in 2012 when the D800 and A7R dropped.
The big reason for an 810 is the massive dynamic range and leading ergonomics, and just general speed. It trades favorably versus basically all other cameras and the D850 basically was evolutionary rather than revolutionary. It has no AA filter, which I look at as an extreme advantage to other cameras in its class. Here is the list of benefits from Wikipedia over its predecessor the D800:

"Compared to the former D800/D800E[1] it offers an image sensor with a base sensitivity of ISO 64 and extended range of ISO 32 to 51,200, an Expeed processor with noise reduction with claimed 1 stop noise improvement, doubled buffer size, increased frame rate and extended battery life, improved autofocus – now similar to the D4S, improved video with 1080p 60 fps and many software improvements."

Basically, the D810 is probably way more camera than anyone needs even 6 years on, but it can be found for pennies on the dollar. A quick look on eBay shows I could get one today with BIN (which of course is more expensive than bidding) for about $1000. Still, I'd probably try to stretch and just buy a Z6 and an FTZ adapter. My opinion.
Appreciate all those recommendations.

I'm not convinced I really have any interest at all in a mirrorless camera. It just doesn't appeal to me in the same way, but the used 810 is an interesting idea. I'm going to look into it. I've never bought a used body before, so it will take some "working up of comfort" for me.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,445
I'd toss that one to ergonomics, really more up to the user.
To me it's about which system has a future. I said it near the beginning of this thread, but DSLR's are dead. The D6 and 1DX III will be the last of their kind. I fully expect that 3-4 years from now both Nikon and Canon will place their high end sports cameras on the mirrorless side. Although sports professionals are more resistant to change, with the upcomming big whites getting an R release from Canon and of course the use of adapters, it will set the stage for Mirrorless to take over even the staunchest opponents. There just won't be a market to sustain an entire ecosystem in around 5-6 years. As far as I'm concerned the writting is on the wall. You either change now or change later, but you're gonna change (or just not buy new cameras I guess).

There is merit to waiting though. The Z6/Z7 you could argue is a first gen product (despite Nikon making many other mirrorless cameras, it's just their first high-end offering). You could wait for Gen 2 products to pop up before switching over. But if you're buying a new camera right now anyway and you plan on buying another down the line, I don't see the difference.

Appreciate all those recommendations.

I'm not convinced I really have any interest at all in a mirrorless camera. It just doesn't appeal to me in the same way, but the used 810 is an interesting idea. I'm going to look into it. I've never bought a used body before, so it will take some "working up of comfort" for me.
As someone whose life revolves around cameras, I generally don't buy anything new. It's the same idea as buying cars. "New car smell" isn't worth 30% depreciation during the first 3 years of ownership, at least not to me. It makes far more sense to buy a 2-3 year old car with 20-30k miles than ever buy a new one. Camera bodies drop like a rock in terms of value and frankly, in order to be practical, I'd much rather buy used and keep all that money in my pocket. Provided that the equipment isn't abused (dropped, or otherwise incorrectly cared for), camera equipment can be used for 50 years+. As an example, there is a big market for vintage camera lenses to be used for film. People are still buying FD Canon glass from the 70's and 80's all the way to Leica glass from all the way back to 20s.

So, to reiterate, all my camera gear is used. I've probably saved at least 40% over the years by not buying new and certainly in actual cash dollar amounts in the thousands. The D810 was a $3000 camera. Now used I'm sure you can find it for less than $1000. I know which option I'd go for.

As for the Z6, not sure what your hold up is. They work like dSLR's without the mirror. You can still use the "viewfinder" which is also generally what I prefer for shooting stills. It does take some getting used to, to using a small OLED screen instead of getting to see an optical picture, but the advantage is you know what the image will look like before it hits the back of your camera (since you're seeing all the processing). So it is a pros and cons experience in terms of that. But the rest of it, technology wise, is going to be better in that system than all their previous systems just because that's the way tech works. It's the newest stuff Nikon has done and they're having to compete for their life in a very competitive marketplace.
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,272
To me it's about which system has a future. I said it near the beginning of this thread, but DSLR's are dead. The D6 and 1DX III will be the last of their kind. I fully expect that 3-4 years from now both Nikon and Canon will place their high end sports cameras on the mirrorless side. Although sports professionals are more resistant to change, with the upcomming big whites getting an R release from Canon and of course the use of adapters, it will set the stage for Mirrorless to take over even the staunchest opponents. There just won't be a market to sustain an entire ecosystem in around 5-6 years. As far as I'm concerned the writting is on the wall. You either change now or change later, but you're gonna change (or just not buy new cameras I guess).

There is merit to waiting though. The Z6/Z7 you could argue is a first gen product (despite Nikon making many other mirrorless cameras, it's just their first high-end offering). You could wait for Gen 2 products to pop up before switching over. But if you're buying a new camera right now anyway and you plan on buying another down the line, I don't see the difference.


As someone whose life revolves around cameras, I generally don't buy anything new. It's the same idea as buying cars. "New car smell" isn't worth 30% depreciation during the first 3 years of ownership, at least not to me. It makes far more sense to buy a 2-3 year old car with 20-30k miles than ever buy a new one. Camera bodies drop like a rock in terms of value and frankly, in order to be practical, I'd much rather buy used and keep all that money in my pocket. Provided that the equipment isn't abused (dropped, or otherwise incorrectly cared for), camera equipment can be used for 50 years+. As an example, there is a big market for vintage camera lenses to be used for film. People are still buying FD Canon glass from the 70's and 80's all the way to Leica glass from all the way back to 20s.

So, to reiterate, all my camera gear is used. I've probably saved at least 40% over the years by not buying new and certainly in actual cash dollar amounts in the thousands. The D810 was a $3000 camera. Now used I'm sure you can find it for less than $1000. I know which option I'd go for.

As for the Z6, not sure what your hold up is. They work like dSLR's without the mirror. You can still use the "viewfinder" which is also generally what I prefer for shooting stills. It does take some getting used to, to using a small OLED screen instead of getting to see an optical picture, but the advantage is you know what the image will look like before it hits the back of your camera (since you're seeing all the processing). So it is a pros and cons experience in terms of that. But the rest of it, technology wise, is going to be better in that system than all their previous systems just because that's the way tech works. It's the newest stuff Nikon has done and they're having to compete for their life in a very competitive marketplace.
Part of it for me is that I have big hands. I have a D90, which is large compared to many (most? all?) mirror-less models, but I found the body to be too small, so I bought the battery grip and added it to to give it more size and heft. I'm not sure I'd like these small bodies, especially with my big 70-200 F/2.8 up front. It just doesn't seem balanced.

Then there is the lack of a body focus motor. If they made an adapter that included a focus motor, it would go a ways to reduce my reluctance. One of the reasons I always liked the Nikon ecosystem is that you can pretty much use any F-Mount lens they've manufactured with full features back to the beginning of the mount in 1959, and because of this there are many great lenses out there for not very much money. I picked up my 50mm F/1.4D and my 35-70 F/2.8D for pennies on the dollar and optically they are indistinguishable from their modern counterpart to my non-professional eyes. Sure, I could pick up a 50mm F/1.4G ($379) or an 24-70 F/2.8G ($1,449) to replace them, but now we are talking real money.

Add to that that many of the touted features of mirrorless cameras I just don't use. Video? Don't care. Taking pictures using that big screen? Don't care, I use the viewfinder for 100% of my shots. Also viewing the final image isn't that important to me. I shoot almost everything in RAW and tinker with that stuff, sometimes for hours to get it perfect, after the fact.

Also, and this is less important, but all these years later, I still get a huge amount of satisfaction from a solid shutter activation. Not sure I'd care for all of these "silent" modes many of the modern cameras have.

But yeah, most of these aren't HUGE deals, but when there is a product out there that does what I like and am used to, and I'm not sacrificing anything I care about, why not? The second they make an FTZ adapter with a focus motor in it for D lenses, I may start reconsidering.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,272
Honestly, it's a bit out of my price range, and a little old at this point (2013), and seems saddled with the disappointing AF from the D600, but I have to admit, the silver Nikon Df is really appealing to me :p

I love the old fashioned tactile buttons.
 
Last edited:

Marees

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
498
I love the old fashioned tactile buttons.
Maybe you can give Fuji DSLRs(mirror-less) a try.

As others say, Nikon's DSLR(mirror-less) will need more time to mature

EDIT:
or you could try a used Olympus camera&Lens too. The Olympus gear should be well balanced for handling, I think

If possible rent Fuji/Olympus & see how it feels in hand & how usable it is...
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,272
Maybe you can give Fuji DSLRs(mirror-less) a try.

As others say, Nikon's DSLR(mirror-less) will need more time to mature

EDIT:
or you could try a used Olympus camera&Lens too. The Olympus gear should be well balanced for handling, I think

If possible rent Fuji/Olympus & see how it feels in hand & how usable it is...
Too late for that. I'm already pretty heavily invested in the Nikon infrastructure
 

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
4,665
who said that? its funny that some people feel the need to put words into others mouths. guess we can start posting car news to the tech news as there is tech/computers in modern cars...
I used to post car news all the time when I was a staff news writer. So much fun pissing off the Tesla fanbois.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,245
onestly, it's a bit out of my price range, and a little old at this point (2013), and seems saddled with the disappointing AF from the D600, but I have to admit, the silver Nikon Df is really appealing to me :p

I love the old fashioned tactile buttons.
That Nikon didn't put a better AF system in the Df is a sore spot for many to this day; a refresh of that camera with the system in the D850 would probably prove quite popular, at least as a DSLR can be.

Sure, I could pick up a 50mm F/1.4G ($379)
Sam optics as the 'D' models, newer coatings, Nikon's signature poky AF motor... Canon did the same thing. I think Sony and Panasonic are the only manufacturers with a modern 50/1.4 full-frame lens, and those are mirrorless only. Sigma's 50/1.4 Art is an example of what is possible, but it costs quite a bit more; Tamron's 45/1.8 VC, slower but stabilized, also fairly large. I own this one in Canon EF mount and use it regularly. It's not any 'cleaner' than the Canon (or Nikon) 50mm lenses, but it is far sharper, especially at shorter focus distances where it focuses much closer.

Now, for your use, Nikon's 50/1.8G is actually exceedingly well regarded, more so than the 50/1.4G, mostly because it's sharper (and smaller and lighter and cheaper).

24-70 F/2.8G ($1,449)
The 24-70/2.8E VR is the newest one; image quality is actually a bit disappointing, but also as good as it's going to get on Nikon for such a lens. The G lens is likely the better buy unless VR is attractive as it's sharper in the middle, or Tamron's 24-70/2.8 VC G2, which is pretty universally praised and combines the best qualities of both Nikon lenses. Of course it's still 'real' money.
Add to that that many of the touted features of mirrorless cameras I just don't use. Video? Don't care. Taking pictures using that big screen? Don't care, I use the viewfinder for 100% of my shots. Also viewing the final image isn't that important to me. I shoot almost everything in RAW and tinker with that stuff, sometimes for hours to get it perfect, after the fact.
So... yeah. Basically, mirrorless helps you get the shot that's actually worth investing hours of post-processing into. Stuff like focus assists and dead-accurate autofocus are really a big deal. Fortunately, those are available on most DSLRs in live view mode as well. We do most of our product / food photography this way if we're not already tethered to a computer for an even larger monitor. Definitely use live view for landscapes. Mirrorless just puts all those tools in the viewfinder, and I use both with my EOS M5 when traveling as appropriate.

And still shooting in RAW :).
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,272
That Nikon didn't put a better AF system in the Df is a sore spot for many to this day; a refresh of that camera with the system in the D850 would probably prove quite popular, at least as a DSLR can be.
I'm guessing they didn't want to compete too much with their own D4. Still, a shame.

Nikon's signature poky AF motor... Canon did the same thing. I think Sony and Panasonic are the only manufacturers with a modern 50/1.4 full-frame lens, and those are mirrorless only.
What's wrong with the SWM motor in the AF-S? Its quiet and fast. At least in every lens I've ever used.

Sigma's 50/1.4 Art is an example of what is possible, but it costs quite a bit more; Tamron's 45/1.8 VC, slower but stabilized, also fairly large. I own this one in Canon EF mount and use it regularly. It's not any 'cleaner' than the Canon (or Nikon) 50mm lenses, but it is far sharper, especially at shorter focus distances where it focuses much closer.

Now, for your use, Nikon's 50/1.8G is actually exceedingly well regarded, more so than the 50/1.4G, mostly because it's sharper (and smaller and lighter and cheaper).
I bought the 50mm F/1.4D not because I ever wanted to use it wide open, but because you usually get sharper images a few stops down from wide open. I figured with the 1.4 I could probably shoot sharp at 2.8. With the 1.8, I may have to stop down to 4. But you are saying the 1.8 is actually sharper?

The 24-70/2.8E VR is the newest one; image quality is actually a bit disappointing, but also as good as it's going to get on Nikon for such a lens. The G lens is likely the better buy unless VR is attractive as it's sharper in the middle, or Tamron's 24-70/2.8 VC G2, which is pretty universally praised and combines the best qualities of both Nikon lenses. Of course it's still 'real' money.
Huh. I can't express how nuts some of this sounds to me. Things must have really changed a lot in the last 8-10 years.

When I was into this Nikons lenses were some of the highest regarded. Sigma and Tamron had a handful of OK lenses, but they were the outliers, and in general they were considered by far second tier. I never had any experience with Canon gear.

Has Nikon really lost ground in the last decade?

So... yeah. Basically, mirrorless helps you get the shot that's actually worth investing hours of post-processing into. Stuff like focus assists and dead-accurate autofocus are really a big deal. Fortunately, those are available on most DSLRs in live view mode as well. We do most of our product / food photography this way if we're not already tethered to a computer for an even larger monitor. Definitely use live view for landscapes. Mirrorless just puts all those tools in the viewfinder, and I use both with my EOS M5 when traveling as appropriate.

And still shooting in RAW :).

Yeah, for me it has always been a hobby, something I do for fun, not something I have any interest in doing professionally. So an efficient optimized workflow is less important to me than having fun with the experience of using the thing. Throw in some film era nostalgia (without TOO much of the inconvenience) and I'm sold.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,272
everything has some kind of technology. it is funny some people say they don't care about technology yet they still use it every day of their lives.
The printing press and the telegraph are technology. Lets get printing press and telegraphy news ;)
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,245
I always had a fondness for the olympus "tough" series
Those will definitely be missed!
I'm guessing they didn't want to compete too much with their own D4. Still, a shame.
Specsheet competitor, perhaps; but a D4 (or 1D X) is really it's own thing. Problem is that focus misses with the system used in the Df and D600 / D610 were easily apparent, whilst Nikon had better technology available.
What's wrong with the SWM motor in the AF-S? Its quiet and fast. At least in every lens I've ever used.
Mostly, they use it in higher-end lenses that then have relatively pokey autofocus. Not bad in they're lower-priced lenses, of course. But lenses like their premiere 105/1.4E deserve better focus motors. Of course their 'pro' lenses, i.e. f/2.8 zooms, have full ring USM motors.
I bought the 50mm F/1.4D not because I ever wanted to use it wide open, but because you usually get sharper images a few stops down from wide open. I figured with the 1.4 I could probably shoot sharp at 2.8. With the 1.8, I may have to stop down to 4. But you are saying the 1.8 is actually sharper?
At equivalent apertures, that's the scuttlebutt. Main point though is that there's essentially no advantage to the f/1.4 lens outside of the small boost in transmission and control of focus isolation.

Now, that max aperture does absolutely help at the wider shooting apertures for stuff like the reduction of vignetting, sharpening up a bit, and cleaning up aberrations.

Huh. I can't express how nuts some of this sounds to me. Things must have really changed a lot in the last 8-10 years.

When I was into this Nikons lenses were some of the highest regarded. Sigma and Tamron had a handful of OK lenses, but they were the outliers, and in general they were considered by far second tier. I never had any experience with Canon gear.

Has Nikon really lost ground in the last decade?
Nikon's lost plenty of ground; granted, they've been number two since Canon's autofocus system took off in the late eighties, so they do suffer more from market perturbations. They've also had a misadventure with their 1" system which has since been abandoned, as well as some 1" point and shoots. They've had plenty of quality control issues, and they also depend on Sony for sensors (and anyone other than Sony that they once used... have been bought by Sony).

They still have their advantage in lenses design, though not universally; their diffractive optics tech is quite nice, see the 300/4E, and their mirrorless lenses are absurdly sharp despite being on the slower side (for now).

Big setback for Nikon though was processors; Sony has been mentioned above with the same thing, but what really stuck was that Nikon's live view and on-sensor focus systems were... bad. Sony's were pretty bad too when they started jumping to mirrorless, and this is one area where Canon was actually pretty far ahead because they'd prioritized sensor readout speeds. A 15-year old Canon will have a much better live view experience.
Yeah, for me it has always been a hobby, something I do for fun, not something I have any interest in doing professionally. So an efficient optimized workflow is less important to me than having fun with the experience of using the thing. Throw in some film era nostalgia (without TOO much of the inconvenience) and I'm sold.
Well, there's the 'get off your ass' part of it, but also the just something to do part of it. My wife is doing food science, and there's a requirement in the field for photographic skills, so I've been skilling her up in that regard. For me it was mostly about travel.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,272
Mostly, they use it in higher-end lenses that then have relatively pokey autofocus. Not bad in they're lower-priced lenses, of course. But lenses like their premiere 105/1.4E deserve better focus motors. Of course their 'pro' lenses, i.e. f/2.8 zooms, have full ring USM motors.
Ahh, maybe that's why I ahven't noticed it. The only AF-S lens I really use much is my 70-200 F/2.8G VR
 

Auer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
1,739
Olympus dropped the ball with no AF for their OM series back in the film days, Got it back with their fantastic point and shoots in the 90's and let it all go again with the "Photographic Experience" garbage and high prices.

Canon gets away with whatever plastic mediocre junk they put out as they price it well for the low end, and offer stellar Pro support.
But if youre a serious amateur there are many much better choices today like Sony's Full frame offerings.

With the exception of some old Film gear, I never owned Canon for personal use. But for work it's about the only smart option, for now.
 

sleepeeg3

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
4,919
I used to have an Olympus 1.3MP digital camera back in the early 2000s that worked great.
Their products, at least up until recently, always seemed to be fairly high quality, but with the paradigm shift to smartphones, its not too surprising something like this would happen to a consumer camera company.

At least they are staying in the scientific and medical technology fields.
I remember selling that back in '97 when it was a $1600 camera (1280x1024) and I worked at CompUSA. One of the main alternatives was an $800 0.3MP (640x480) Sony Mavica that used a 3 1/2" floppy disk. Resolution was terrible, pictures were awful, but it didn't use Olympus's SD technology, which may have been proprietary. I think the Sony also had a 10x zoom.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,445
Canon gets away with whatever plastic mediocre junk they put out as they price it well for the low end, and offer stellar Pro support.
In general you get what you pay for. I would say that there isn't really a lot of cameras to compete with Canon in the <$700 entry level category. And frankly you're not going to get magnesium bodies that are weather sealed and full frame for that price. I would say that Canon focuses on the more important aspects of what an entry camera needs. Which is mostly cost and good bang for the buck in terms of image quality. Also, Canon's engineering plastics are quite good. Have you used the 35mm f/2.0 IS? All plastic doesn't mean garbage.

I do agree with your assessment of CPS though. I worked with Canon for 7 years. CPS was always stellar.

But if youre a serious amateur there are many much better choices today like Sony's Full frame offerings.

With the exception of some old Film gear, I never owned Canon for personal use. But for work it's about the only smart option, for now.
I don't really agree with the assessment of the imaging world in general. There are plenty of pros that are on every system. Hell, there have people that have been proponents of using Fuji for well over 5 years (like Zack Arias).

If the only definition of "professional" is someone that shoots sports, then yeah, for the most part your only two options have been Canon or Nikon with the Sony A9 being a very distant 3rd. But if I was getting paid to do high end commercial photography or editorial, I'd be on Phase One or Hasselblad. For people in those categories that can't afford those premium systems I'd gravitate towards the Sony A7R series or Nikon Z7/D850. Actually in general Canon has been behind on resolution and DR until basically the R system (which is much closer but not as good as its rivals). And these are just some examples.

I could shoot a wedding or event with basically any camera, so long as it's AF and general handling speed don't get in my way and I have the correct tools (glass). And it would be impossible to know from simply looking at the images whether you're on Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony, Panasonic, etc, (with EXIF data removed and all resolutions normalized to the same size, like say 24MP). And that has been a position that has been true for a very long time. Personal preference at this point and emphasis on specific characteristics is basically the only reasons left to buy into one camera system over another.
 
Last edited:

Auer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
1,739
Personal preference at this point and emphasis on specific characteristics is basically the only reasons left to buy into one camera system over another.
Reliability, Availability and Support. Cameras are tools.
 
Top