NIKON...MIRROR LESS NOW WITH FIRMWARE UPDATE

WestEndFoto

Capt_Spaulding said:

Hiker said:

Has anyone with a DSLR taken a fireworks pic hand held without a tripod or support? Just curious.

edit: It's almost certainly not as good as S&Ps fireworks images and I haven't sold any of these. But it was a DSLR (D7200) and it was handheld.



But 1) I'm not sure what this tells you nor 2) how mirrorless would make this better. [shrug]

Well, it looks great. But it would be interesting to blow it up and really see. But I think that if one wants to take images like these to the "next level", you should spend your money on a tripod. Even a lens won't matter much, and a camera will be mostly irrelevant. A $500 Sony camera on a tripod will be superior to a D5 handheld.

HankB

Because there are so many variables in fireworks photography, realtime review of previous shots just taken helps you fine tune (or in my case, make gross corrections) for the next shots. So if you are caught without a tripod and using the viewfinder, mirrorless has an advantage in realtime review.

Just sayin....(yes, I am nitpicking)

Hiker

WestEndFoto said:

Well, if I was worried about price, I would buy a D750 which on the B&H website is $1,796 compared to the A7 III which is $200 more and does not give me access to Nikon lenses unless I use an adapter. The lenses I use will mean more for image quality than any small image improvements that Sony (or Nikon) has made since the D750 came out 3 years ago - and the image quality difference over 3 years IS small. Moore's law is not what it used to be.

And since I am patient (I resisted the urge to update my D800 to a D810 which was a significant upgrade and waited for the D850) I would probably just wait to iterate the D750 unless what I am using now is broken.

But that is just my two bits. Let us know how the change goes.

But one other thing, I looked at the four lenses that you mentioned in your earlier post. If I was in your position, I would keep the D7200 and upgrade your lenses. To what? That depends on your subjects. But the money that you are going to spend for a new camera will produce a much more significant improvement if you spend it on lenses. I would say that whatever, camera you end up with, don't upgrade it again until you have spent triple the camera purchase price on lenses - my rough rule of thumb. And whatever you do, don't change mounts again. Whatever gain you think you can gain with another company's photon detector will be neutralized by the next generation of your current photon detector. If you buy good lenses, however, they will serve you well for a very long time.

Yes, it is a photon detector that depends on the lenses more than anything for the quality. You can improve on ergonomics and improve hit rates, but they won't impact the quality of your images like lenses will.

I added two more bits. Sorry.......

LOL I hear you!! Glad someone else has a sense of humor! I was out the other day hiking with the 7200 and the Sigma 24-105 and the Sigma 17-50. I was taking my CP filter out of the pouch to put it on the 17-50 when the camera almost fell. It was on top of my Lowepro Flipside 200. That started me thinking if I had an full frame camera and had both those focal lengths covered that wouldn't have happened or almost happened. I moved quicker than ever when it started to slide off!! My lenses I have are sharp with the D7200. My main concern is that those FX glass I have will not be compatible with any new mirrorless offering from Nikon. And the fact also that I can lighten my kit without having to switch lenses when I need to. In my experience so far, I've been using the 24-105 more so now (yes, I know the crop gives me more reach) and the 17-50 less and less. The Tokina? 5 times in the past 2 years. I switched lenses that day (Monday) because I need wider for being inside an open volcanic cinder cone that time.

Hiker

Capt_Spaulding said:

Hiker said:

Has anyone with a DSLR taken a fireworks pic hand held without a tripod or support? Just curious.

edit: It's almost certainly not as good as S&Ps fireworks images and I haven't sold any of these. But it was a DSLR (D7200) and it was handheld.



But 1) I'm not sure what this tells you nor 2) how mirrorless would make this better. [shrug]

Nice! Wasn't saying that it couldn't be done. I was just impressed by what my friend had done hand held. And just starting out.

Capt_Spaulding

@Hiker I guess my question is what about mirrorless would make the image better or easier to make. I understand Hank's point about chimping using the viewfinder, but how else would going mirrorless make this easier? Exposurewise I just based the initial settings on the lit building, made a few adjustments as the ambient light faded, and a few more adjustments in post. But again, I'm just not sure how a change to a Sony or Fuji or whatever mirrorless body would have helped.

I am not likely to switch. I have made a reasonable investment in Nikon FX glass. Not like some, but enough that it would make changing expensive. I certainly understand your concern about getting ghettoized by lens compatibility problems. But, I guess I'm just not that worried about getting left behind. Mostly because compared to the really good photographers on this and other boards, I'm already there. My D7200 and D610 are already much better than I am and I'm not getting any younger.

This was taken at my son's college graduation in a large crowd and a tripod didn't seem like an appropriate tool. But mostly, I just didn't have much in the way of expectations. The pictures turned out better than I'd thought they would. Not great, but I admit to being pretty pleased with myself.

Hiker

I've been looking to go FX. But looking in that same camera store I'm heading to today at the Nikon and Canon FX cameras, they are HUGE. I'm no spring chicken anymore that's for sure. I have arthritis in both my thumb joints (don't get me going on my insurance coverage regarding treatments!) So smaller and "lighter" with less lens exchange is in my future. I shoot mostly landscapes for personal pleasure out here in AZ. Not saying a mirrorless is the answer, but a possible answer for me to go FX at a decent price and size, with using only one lens. Unless Nikon comes out with something comparable to the A7iii. But that remains to be seen until they release something this year. I'm waiting and not doing anything until I see what Nikon does or if Sony has a great offer during the holidays.

spraynpray

I know what you mean Hiker. My next camera will be as small and light as I can get excellent IQ out of. Surgeries and age. Ugh.

Capt_Spaulding

You know Hiker, for doing landscapes you could do a lot worse than a D750 or even a D610. My 610, even with a 24-85 f3.5-4.5 takes very sharp pictures. The AF gets dodgy in low light and it's not 40+MP but the sensor is still (IMHO) very good. Combined with a D7200 (not as low light capable as a D500, perhaps but still very serviceable) I can do pretty much everything I want to do. I just added a 200-500 and I think that rounds out my glass collection. To date I've printed as big as 20x30 from both and the images are very sharp, even from the 24-85.

In the end, you have to do what's right for you. I'd just take the advice of Ford Prefect - Don't Panic (it'll work out).

Hiker

spraynpray said:

I know what you mean Hiker. My next camera will be as small and light as I can get excellent IQ out of. Surgeries and age. Ugh.

My insurance covers the worst of the 3 options. Surgery to remove the bone and attach muscle to the joint. One year recovery. But won't cover blood platelet and stem cell replacement the least invasive. Go figure...which leads me to a lighter kit without having to twist a lens off and on as much. Some days it's manageable, some not so much so! When I get back from the camera store, I'll share my experience with the Sony and what the salesman (whom I trust, nice guy) says.

Pistnbroke

That is an unusual firework ,,you have captured an eruption in time ...most displays are moving rockets/bursts etc which take seconds to rise into the sky and need a long ..say 20 sec exposure to capture many firings in one frame ..ok its a great image but not typical,
then of course you can use the Nikon feature which allows you to combine multiple images into one ..ideal for fireworks

HankB

When it comes specifically to weight, I doubt that there is any significant INHERENT difference between mirrorless and DSLR bodies. B&H lists the D750 at 750g and the Sony a7 iii at 650g. That is only 100g, or 3-1/2 oz, or 1/5 pound.

And if Sony were to redesign the camera to make one single change, to match the battery life of a competing Nikon, that 100g difference would shrink. On the other hand, if you want huge frame rates, the DSLR does start to get massive.

As for lenses, I have no idea if a mirrorless lens would weigh any different — all other factors equal. Any difference would depend on optimizing the optics themselves, as shortening the lens barrel itself can't have significant mass.

Capt_Spaulding

Pistonbroke, If you're referring to my image, it was a really unusual display. It was, for all intents and purposes, a 20 minute continuous eruption of light and fire. If memory serves, I used ISO 2000 mas o menos, f5 or 6 and about 1/40 sec. What you see is what was happening in that short window. I took several dozen pictures, not two are alike. It was truly amazing. I don't know how much that display cost the University of Texas but it must have been a pretty penny.

Pistnbroke

yes Capt ..usually its a 24mm a few hundred yards away and the bursts come one after the other high in the sky hence as long an exposure ( 200 iso f5.6) as you need to capture enough. I am talking commercial displays not what we do in the UK with fireworks from the supermarket.

Hiker

Just came from Tempe Camera. I held and played with the A7Riii. They are sold out of the A7iii and there’s a waiting list. It is FAR LIGHTER than my D7200 and is way smaller in my hands. Actually felt very comfortable to hold. They didn’t have a 24-105 to try out though. The EVF would take some getting used to. Overall it seems like a nice setup. And I grilled the salesman about questions and concerns. Mainly the one card thats being UHS2 and the dimness of the EVF. The card issue he says would only pertain to when one is doing video.

Hiker

I tried to post my above comment from my smart phone yesterday, no one ever called them INTELLIGENT phones....

Pistnbroke

I thought the A7r 2 had one card and the A7r3 had two.... does not the brightness of the viewfinder indicate the "brightness" of the image recorded?

Hiker

Pistnbroke said:

I thought the A7r 2 had one card and the A7r3 had two.... does not the brightness of the viewfinder indicate the "brightness" of the image recorded?

Yes. A7R2 has one card slot. I was referring to the A73's one UHS2 slot, the other being UHS1.

Capt_Spaulding

While not really in the target audience of the A7R3 the notion of using two SD slots of different specification strikes me as pretty weird. Is there an economic/cost reason for doing this?

Pistnbroke

I think you can use a standard card in either slot ..you certainly can use the UHS 2 in the slots of a D7100 ( UHS 1)

retread

When I got the D500 I used a UHS 1 card only while I saved money for XQD and UHS 11cards.
Worked fine but of course slower.

BabaGanoush

WestEndFoto said:

In the real world, technique and composition are almost always the real determinants of what makes a shot amazing. If there is a gear aspect that is important, it is usually lens related and Nikon and Canon with their extensive selection of lenses win here. The only sensor factor that is important is and advantage to Nikon and Sony equally. But sensors are least likely to be the important factor.

Mirrorless has one advantage over DSLRs that you overlook, and that is the accuracy of its phase detection autofocus. Mirrorless uses the imaging sensor to focus, so there's none of the focus tuning and micro adjustment nonsense of the DSLRs. The main reason I'm moving toward mirrorless is because of the AF issue. I mostly use zoom lenses rather than primes. It takes a long time for me to fine tune a zoom lens for proper focus, and whatever the choice of micro adjustment value it is nearly always a compromise, one that results in sub-optimal performance at some lens and camera settings. I don't like that.

Fine tuning the focus of a DSLR has to be redone too often, and for different circumstances, to suit me. If I'm shooting out in the hot sun and the inside of the camera gets hot, that means I should use one micro adjustment value; but if I'm shooting in cold temperatures, I have to choose a different micro adjustment value? What nonsense! C'mon, who needs that? Should I use Nikon Live View? No thank you: Nikon's Live View (which defaults to Contrast Detect AF) is far too slow to suit me.

I once owned a Nikon D7000 with the 16-85mm lens, which front focused at one end of its zoom range and back focused at the other. The difference in the focus was noticeable. Proper focus of this lens needed at least two different micro adjustment values. Nikon allows you just one. Big difference, big compromise in lens performance. I currently own (and enjoy) a D7200 with the 16-80mm lens. It has the same issue, front focusing at one end of the zoom range and back focusing at the other. Now, there's not as much of a focus difference versus the D7K I used to have, but frankly I've had enough of this nonsense. I want a properly designed autofocus focusing system; the engineering kludge used by generations of DSLRs is no longer acceptable to me. Sony offers eye-AF. It's amazing. It's not DSLR. It's mirrorless. Here I come, mirrorless.

WestEndFoto

BabaGanoush said:

WestEndFoto said:

In the real world, technique and composition are almost always the real determinants of what makes a shot amazing. If there is a gear aspect that is important, it is usually lens related and Nikon and Canon with their extensive selection of lenses win here. The only sensor factor that is important is and advantage to Nikon and Sony equally. But sensors are least likely to be the important factor.

Mirrorless has one advantage over DSLRs that you overlook, and that is the accuracy of its phase detection autofocus. Mirrorless uses the imaging sensor to focus, so there's none of ..................................... of the zoom range and back focusing at the other. Now, there's not as much of a focus difference versus the D7K I used to have, but frankly I've had enough of this nonsense. I want a properly designed autofocus focusing system; the engineering kludge used by generations of DSLRs is no longer acceptable to me. Sony offers eye-AF. It's amazing. It's not DSLR. It's mirrorless. Here I come, mirrorless.

I did not overlook it because I don't believe that it is a DSLR vs Mirrorless issue. I think that the AF issue is one of two things:

1.
Service issue. Did you take your lens and body in to get serviced? This sounds like a pretty serious issue to be showing up on a f/3.5-5.6 lens with that depth of field. I would also think that Nikon should also be able to fix it. Does anybody know from experience if this is an issue that Nikon's service department would not be able to fix.

2.
This is a bit of a stretch as implementing a fix is different for a DSLR is not quite as simple. However, I think that if Nikon put their mind to it, they would easily be able to fix this issue with the ability to fine tune for different focal lengths. I suspect that if you did that, your issue would not be noticeable with changes in temperature.

I have three bodies: D5500 (Wife's), D800 and D850. I also have a little more than a dozen auto-focus lenses, four of which are zooms (the 8-15 fisheye and holy trinity). I have not detected an auto-focus issue on any of them, except maybe a very minor one on my 28 1.4E.

I feel your frustration, but if you change a system because of a service issue, you might be dealing with an entirely different service issue with the new system.

And there is a focus disadvantage that Thom has documented well regarding mirrorless. With a high frame rate, a DSLR with a fast prime shot with a wide aperture will consistently nail the focus, especially with the latest generations of FX DSLRs (D750, D810, D850 and D5). The mirrorless on the other hand will miss a little quite a lot if you look closely. This is because Phase Detect is much faster than Contrast Detect and when set right, more precise.

Yes, Sony offers eye-AF. But Nikon offers face AF which actually nails the eye quite consistently, though I admit that the Sony is better in this area. However, if you set the focus on the eye with 3D focus, the Nikon will track the eye. Using my D850 on a variety of lenses, this worked very well in the Sports and Action Photography class that I recently took. Choosing mirrorless for this reason is like choosing DSLRs because the weather sealing is better (Sony is still crap in this area). Wait a generation.

You have a fabulous camera and a faulty lens. Would it not be cheaper to fix or replace the lens?

However, if you only have one lens, at least it won't cost to much to change systems.

PB_PM

WestEndFoto said:

This is because Phase Detect is much faster than Contrast Detect and when set right, more precise.

Which is why all the modern high end mirrorless systems use both contrast and phase detect auto focus (Sony, Fuji, and Canon all have hybrid systems with phase detect auto focus points built right into the sensor) that use phase detect for the fast initial focus and contrast to check that focus is correct. Best of both worlds for most things. Still not sure that anything other than the Sony A9 can match the higher end DSLRs though.

WestEndFoto

PB_PM said:

WestEndFoto said:

This is because Phase Detect is much faster than Contrast Detect and when set right, more precise.

Which is why all the modern high end mirrorless systems use both contrast and phase detect auto focus (Sony, Fuji, and Canon all have hybrid systems with phase detect auto focus points built right into the sensor) that use phase detect for the fast initial focus and contrast to check that focus is correct. Best of both worlds for most things. Still not sure that anything other than the Sony A9 can match the higher end DSLRs though.

That is a good point. Thom thinks that the A9 comes up short however. That is because at high frame rates, the contrast does not work fast enough.

Hiker

I upgraded the firmware on my D3300. BAM!!! I had to send the camera in for focusing issues. Now the firmware for the D7200 has issues, which I have NOT upgraded and have no plan to. The A9 is supposed to be an amazing camera. But the A7iii is supposed to be superior?? The only difference, other than $2500. price is the 20 fps. I'm looking forward to see what Nikon offers. If they come up with nothing than it's night night. I'm really surprised that the die hard Nikon lovers don't have much of an open mind. It's almost like Sony has invaded their precious space.