Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Need a new Camera, suggestions?
- Thread starter TSE
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Absolutely! What lovely things they are. Though, a rangefinder-style camera is a bit of a different kettle of fish. I've not used a modern one, but they have some advantages, some disadvantages, certainly in traditional form they do not bring precise framing to the party!
All modern cameras in the price range that you suggest will make beautiful pictures in capable hands.
I personally use the Sony A7 and Sony Nex 6. Just brilliant! Size can't be beaten and you can use almost any lens from all systems (old legacy glass with manual focus even modern lenses with auto focus). With an Le-ea adapter (4 versions available) you can use all Sony and Minolta A mount AF lenses with lighting fast focus!
I have just one expensive lens, the Zeiss 55mm f1.8 for the A7 that also works as a portrait lens on the Nex 6 due to crop! A Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (a mount),a sony 70-300 (a mount), the kit lens and some really old Minolta Rokkors that i love. I have two more lenses in mind though for the near future..
In any case, go to a camera store and use all the cameras you like. Get the one that you like the most (assuming all cameras you are looking have the same sensor size)
I personally use the Sony A7 and Sony Nex 6. Just brilliant! Size can't be beaten and you can use almost any lens from all systems (old legacy glass with manual focus even modern lenses with auto focus). With an Le-ea adapter (4 versions available) you can use all Sony and Minolta A mount AF lenses with lighting fast focus!
I have just one expensive lens, the Zeiss 55mm f1.8 for the A7 that also works as a portrait lens on the Nex 6 due to crop! A Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (a mount),a sony 70-300 (a mount), the kit lens and some really old Minolta Rokkors that i love. I have two more lenses in mind though for the near future..
In any case, go to a camera store and use all the cameras you like. Get the one that you like the most (assuming all cameras you are looking have the same sensor size)
Yup, every VF type has its pluses and minuses.
For what the OP lists as his uses, an eyelevel electronic VF seems the best suited, especially if paired with an articulate rear panel LCD VF. The eyelevel for most handheld shooting and the rear panel for the studio product photography where camera positioning can make eyelevel VFs a pain to use.
The one place where optical finders clearly win, for now at least, is fast action work (e.g. sports, ...) where the subtle lag in electronic VFs can be a issue. For landscape and studio work this lag is obviously a non-issue.
T each their own I guess. Of course, you could always use "Live View" like an EVF I suppose. You could even get one of those eyepiece things that DSLR cinema guys use, if that is what you prefer.
Find what is comfortable for you.
I like all the extra physical buttons, perhaps because that is what I learned on. I like to be able to adjust by feel, and I can do that with a Nikon DSLR.
Maybe you would too, but the camera would be too big and you wouldn't carry it instead of the A6000. A camera sitting at home in a bag is just useless.
Find what is comfortable for you.
I like all the extra physical buttons, perhaps because that is what I learned on. I like to be able to adjust by feel, and I can do that with a Nikon DSLR.
Maybe you would too, but the camera would be too big and you wouldn't carry it instead of the A6000. A camera sitting at home in a bag is just useless.
That's a generalization which is not true: how bright an optical viewfinder in an slr is depends on the type of viewfinder (if it is a pentamirror viewfinder or a pentaprism viewfinder, the latter being much brighter) and the lens which is coupled to the camera. Optical viewfinders cannot compensate for the exposure that you've chosen, but usually EVFs become quite laggy in situations where this matters (and to me at least, the effect is jarring). But just to be clear: you're not seeing what the sensor is seeing, you're seeing a rough approximation of the final image after processing (if it is dark and you have chosen a shutter speed of 1/8 s, then you have 8 fps natively in your viewfinder). That's why EVFs get quite grainy and laggy in low light, the camera tries to stick to high frame rates (which requires cranking up the ISO).
If you think of rangefinder-style cameras such as the Fuji X100s (which I own), then in OVF mode the picture is actually usually brighter unless you are shooting in the dark. And then you have again you have the trade-off between no lag and usually better image quality, and a more direct feedback on what you image looks like. Fortunately, the the X100s I have both (although I rarely use the EVF). And at least for rangefinder-style cameras, not being limited to what the sensor is seeing is actually an advantage in certain situations, you can anticipate a moving object which is still outside of your picture frame and wait for the perfect moment to pull the trigger.
Yes, I'm familiar with the differences between pentamirror and pentaprism types. They have got dimmer over the years, this is genuinely true. Perhaps it is something to do with passing light to the AF sensors, or maybe they just cut corners or something these days (I have used the odd AF camera, like the Nikon F90x which had a good viewfinder). All the cameras I have now, with the exception of my manual focus bodies, have poor viewfinders. This includes an EOS 3, a Nikon D600, and a Fuji S5 pro. I generally use reasonably fast primes, so I can rule that out as the source of my poor experience. Perhaps The D4 is brighter? (I should hope so!).
Hmm, well, this isn't entirely my experience. My V1 (which by all accounts is a very poor example of the breed) maintains the frame rate regardless of selected shutter speed. It does boost sensitivity, and yes, if I use it in the dark there is some grain. Other cameras may do this differently. Of course I was being flippant when I said I'd rather see what the sensor sees than the lens, but that was my point, you don't see what the lens sees.
Incidentally, I just compared both the V1 and the D600 in a dark room, both with lenses of the same speed. To my eyes, the V1 was best, but I'm sure some would have a different opinion (the V1 also locked focus, while the D600 just racked hopelessly).
I have to disappoint you there. The Viewfinders in all Nikon FX DSLRs are exactly the same.
----------
If the V1s AF is so awesome, then why are all sports protogs using FF DSLRs with optical viewfinders?
I didn't claim it was awesome, though it is actually pretty darn good. Here are a few ideas anyway.
1. The V1 has various other flaws, including some really boneheaded ones.
2. It lacks physical controls.
3. The image quality is not up to snuff, certainly not at higher ISOs.
4. As I said, if you pan fast, probably the viewfinder is slower than an optical one.
5. System inertia.
6. Robustness.
7. I compared one circumstance, casually (know many sports photographers that shoot stationary objects in the near darkness?), and the D600 is not known for its AF excellence anyway, the D810/750/D3/4 etc. will all outpace it.
8. A lack of fast native lenses.
9. 'The sensor is too small' ... though I've never seen a good photo ruined by a too-small sensor.
This thread has really got to the nub of things! Photography is an art form! Pick what suits you and your stylings!
Well, I decided to go with the A6000.
I'm going to go with the black model, and these are the lenses I chose:
The Rokinon 12mm F2.0 lens for times when I need a wide angle and landscape.
Sigma 30mm f2.8 for my general purpose, "normal" lens.
Sony 55-210 f4-5-6.3 zoom lens, for times when I need to zoom.
I'll do a write up once I had them for awhile and used them and compare my experiences to the D3200.
I'm going to go with the black model, and these are the lenses I chose:
The Rokinon 12mm F2.0 lens for times when I need a wide angle and landscape.
Sigma 30mm f2.8 for my general purpose, "normal" lens.
Sony 55-210 f4-5-6.3 zoom lens, for times when I need to zoom.
I'll do a write up once I had them for awhile and used them and compare my experiences to the D3200.
Lovely! I'm sure we all look forward to seeing your results. That 12mm looks quite the lens and the 30mm is supposed to be quite good too. I imagine the longer zoom will not be quite so good but I'm sure it is reasonable for the price.
With the smaller mount-sensor distance you can get adaptors for a really wide range of lenses. Much fun can be had with cheap third-party glass.
With the smaller mount-sensor distance you can get adaptors for a really wide range of lenses. Much fun can be had with cheap third-party glass.
Just got my A6000 with the Rokinon 12mm, the Sigma 30mm, and the Sony 55-210!
Question: The Sigma 30mm makes a very noticeable clunking noise as if there is a moving part inside of it when it moves. Is this normal?
I will post my thoughts on the camera after playing around with it for a few weeks.
Question: The Sigma 30mm makes a very noticeable clunking noise as if there is a moving part inside of it when it moves. Is this normal?
I will post my thoughts on the camera after playing around with it for a few weeks.
A clunky noise sounds bad. Optically stabilized lenses can rattle (mostly on camcorders) because that is how they work. Clunky is different. You might try going to a camera shop and looking at one of theirs to see if it does the same thing.
Clunky sounds are bad. The only parts that may make the tiniest of sounds are the springs in the aperture mechanism and perhaps some switch on the outside of the lens. But these don't make clunking sounds. I'd get the lens exchanged.
This is why Ken Rockwell is the only guy worth reading. His lens reviews include a 'Noises When Shaken' section. And people thought him crazy...
Pick up a 5DIII, and also a 6D. That way you can have good AF and good ISO performance!
Best of all Canon gets more money!
2 is 1, 1 is none right!?
Best of all Canon gets more money!
2 is 1, 1 is none right!?
