Flings with other camera manufacturers

13

Comments

  • BVSBVS Posts: 440Member
    Didn't Nikon also kill kickbacks to sales people after the earthquake? Or, am I misremembering this?
    D7100, 85 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 35 1.8G DX, Tokina 12-28 F4, 18-140, 55-200 VR DX
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,428Member
    If the difference is user interface that really argues for Nikon improving its user interface as so many people have been asking them to do. Snapbridge, touch screen, U1-U2-U3 settings on the top dial, etc.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,675Member

    If the difference is user interface that really argues for Nikon improving its user interface as so many people have been asking them to do. Snapbridge, touch screen, U1-U2-U3 settings on the top dial, etc.

    Yup.
  • SportsSports Posts: 365Member

    ... Canon is expanding its market share at the expense of Nikon and why that would be ...

    Better video means a lot to many people.
    Most will never, ever notice that Nikon's sensors are better, and those that knows, quite often have the skills to work around it in many cases.
    On the other hand, even novices see in 3 seconds that Canon's video is superior, especially AF during video.
    D300, J1
    Sigma 70-200/2.8, 105/2.8
    Nikon 50/1.4G, 18-200, 80-400G
    1 10-30, 30-110
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,428Member
    Good point, Nikon was ahead in AF and video years ago. Seems like Nikon caught up or surpassed Canon in AF but not in video. Nikon better get busy improving its video.
  • BVSBVS Posts: 440Member
    I gotta say, the Sony A6500 looks mighty tempting. Whenever I go somewhere where there's lots of cameras around (e.g. zoo, botanical garden, etc.) there are two things that give me camera envy - people with FF cameras with big fat lenses, and people with tiny little A6XXX cameras dangling around their necks. I hope Nikon does something to compete in this area soon, or there's a good chance of a fling/affair in the near future.
    D7100, 85 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 35 1.8G DX, Tokina 12-28 F4, 18-140, 55-200 VR DX
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    Meh, they have to carry the equivalent difference in weight of the DSLR in batteries to keep the screen and EVF going, that bulge you see does not mean they are happy :blush: Coupled with the fact that Sony has just as many gaps in their APS-C lens line as Nikon, and the ones they have are not that spectacular, I'll keep my DX DSLR, thank you very much.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,675Member
    I will say that Sony has some interesting concepts in cameras. But I buy lenses not cameras. And Sony's lenses are mediocre, overpriced, or both.
  • BVSBVS Posts: 440Member
    edited November 2016
    Yes, the lack of lenses and the fact that it's a Sony is a negative.

    However, my use case for this would be casual family stuff. Just get some small primes and a standard zoom like the 16-70 and call it a day. Whipping out the DSLR in the middle of a restaurant or somewhere just looks awkward, but something like an A6XXX might be ok. Having to carry an extra battery or two is not a huge concern.

    My feature wish list is:
    • Good FPS.
    • APSC or larger.
    • Good low light AF.
    • Face/Eye detect AF. Too many shots get missed juggling AF points currently.
    • Good/smooth video AF (e.g. Canon's DPAF). Currently, if I want a video I nearly always reach for my cell phone.
    • Decent buffer (D7200 or better).
    • Smallish/light weight/not too conspicuous.
    • Silent shooting a plus.
    • In body stabilization a plus.

    The closest Nikon is probably the MIA DL24-85. Just wish is was APSC instead of 1".

    The D500 checks a number of boxes as well, but would be even larger/heavier than currently. Plus the lack of popup flash means even more bigger/heavier having to carry an external flash.




    Post edited by BVS on
    D7100, 85 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 35 1.8G DX, Tokina 12-28 F4, 18-140, 55-200 VR DX
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,675Member
    I would look closely at Fuji, as they have much better glass than Sony. Their cameras are also quite good.
  • paulrpaulr Posts: 1,176Member
    edited November 2016
    BVS The new Nikon Coolpix B700 comes close with items better than you wanted.
    plus a zoom of 24-1400mm optically.
    Post edited by paulr on
    Camera, Lens and Tripod and a few other Bits
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,499Moderator
    A couple of people in my club have Sony bodies and are producing excellent images.
    Always learning.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,675Member
    I do see great images coming from photographers using Sony. But I would buy Fuji in a heartbeat over Sony.
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 1,003Member

    I do see great images coming from photographers using Sony. But I would buy Fuji in a heartbeat over Sony.

    I have been shooting with a rented XT-2 and 2.8 zoom; thus far here are my impressions:

    IQ is very good, but is difficult for me to compare as I decided to only shoot JPEGs because of the X-trans RAW conversion issue in my preferred software. Thom is right in that Fuji needs to work with software manufacturers to help distribute their RAW conversion algorithms. That said shadow recovery in JPEGs is impressive.

    The camera itself is reasonably easy to set up (dials for everything and the menus are intuitive). Probably the weakest dial is the on-off one as it has a very short rotation and is difficult to feel its setting without looking that it is on or off.

    Focus speed is good; difficult to tell accuracy as I shot on auto aperture and did not get many 2.8 pics. This camera does not replace something like a D500 where the focus can lock on and track wild movement. I feel like it would do good with action if you were comfortable shooting at smaller apertures to allow some focus slop in what is actually in focus. The same thing is true of the Sony mirrorless cameras so I would say Fuji is on par with Sony in hit accuracy and is fine for most prosumer shooting scenarios.

    The viewfinder is very good; other than the camera turning off leading to a dark VF and an occasional stutter when try to rapidly zoom, it felt like looking through a DX viewfinder (which is impressive).

    Silent e-shutter was outstanding as expected, and would be the main reason why I would consider purchasing this camera. Rolling shutter in this mode was much, much better than the Sony; one could leave the camera in the e-shutter and largely have their pics unaffected, which is outstanding.

    Grip is a little cumbersome with the extra shutter button placed on the corner, and ultimately if I had a choice again I would just forgo it and have extra batteries on hand instead. Without the grip the camera is noticeably smaller than a DX camera like the 7xxx series. I did not end up needing the boost mode as the VF update rate and frame rates were acceptable in the normal battery sparing mode.

    There are some other things I want to try out today, but I would say overall the camera is a winner IF (and this is a big IF) you don't mind the disturbance to your work from the X-trans RAWs, and IF you don't shoot fast action at wide apertures.

    I think part of Fuji's problem is cost. It costs a lot to buy into this system at this level and I think Fuji should offer a trade in program from Canikon (like trade in your old Honda for a new Toyota). In lieu of the high cost of switching, add on Fuji's like the X100F look like interesting value propositions and I may try one of those in the future.
  • BabaGanoushBabaGanoush Posts: 252Member
    BVS said:

    I gotta say, the Sony A6500 looks mighty tempting. Whenever I go somewhere where there's lots of cameras around (e.g. zoo, botanical garden, etc.) there are two things that give me camera envy - people with FF cameras with big fat lenses, and people with tiny little A6XXX cameras dangling around their necks. I hope Nikon does something to compete in this area soon, or there's a good chance of a fling/affair in the near future.


    I owned the Sony A6000 and now own the A6300. Pairing the A6300 with either the Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 or the FE 70-300mm makes for a superb combo: sharp across nearly the complete field of view over the entire zoom range, fast and accurate AF with very decent tracking, good color and contrast. The Zeiss 35mm and 55mm FE lenses are also exceptional. Do I carry an extra battery or two when I go out shooting with the A6300? Yes, but if I needed to I could stuff a half dozen of them in the pocket of my cargo pants and be good to go for a whole day of non-stop shooting. In bright light, I have no reason to favor my D7200 over my A6300. But in faint light, I'll always go for the D7200, which performs decently even at ISO 12800, well beyond what the A6300 can do.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,499Moderator
    Just sold the Sony A5000 that I bought to use in NYC. Horrid.
    Always learning.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,251Member

    Just sold the Sony A5000 that I bought to use in NYC. Horrid.

    Just curious, what was wrong with it?

    I've been using the Sony RX100 a bit more, it's sometimes odd. I use it in aperture priority mode a lot and I leave it at the biggest aperture. Sometimes when I turn it back on it somehow decides to stop down to around F7. It has sometimes been disastrous, I need that big aperture indoors.

    If I'm not shooting action, it's been a good camera.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,499Moderator
    The A5000 is noisy even in decent light, there doesn't seem to be the depth in the files that you get with a Nikon file, the menu diving was a pain of course so it just reinforced the fact that I am a DSLR man really. I don't like power zoom either.
    Always learning.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    spaynpray, that's just a problem with Sony RAW files in gerneral from what I've seen, and has little to do with the camera being mirrorless. The AD conversion in camera is not as high quality as Nikon's, so the files just are not as nice to work with. The A5000 is Also an old camera (3-4 revisions behind now), which doesn't help.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,499Moderator
    Yeah, don't like it though. It's better than no camera, but it feels six years behind my usual kit.
    Always learning.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    No doubt, I've never been terribly impressed with any of the point and shoot like Sony cameras (mirrorless) that I've tried either. The closest to feel really comes from Fuji or Panasonic.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • MegapixelSchnitzelMegapixelSchnitzel Posts: 185Member
    I predict a lot of affairs with the girl called A9.
  • CaMeRaQuEsTCaMeRaQuEsT Posts: 357Member
    Had a fling with Canon M/M2, Fuji X-10/X-E1 and currently with a Sony A7. All of them mirrorless, you see, something Nikon doesn't make. All of them have colors that are off in my eyes, even after processing RAW files in LR, especially so on the Sony, and especially so after using various Expeed 4 Nikon DX bodies (Expeed 3 bodies' colors were off, too). Controls and ergonomics on the Ms were terrible, just bearable on the Xs and almost good enough on the A7, thanks to its very highly customizable controls. Native lenses are cheap for the EF-M mount, but terribly expensive for both X and E mounts, especially the Fujis, which cost a lot more than the equivalent Nikon or Canon full frame lenses. Shooting with an EVF lets me adjust exposure with zebras, zoom in to focus accurately with my old pre-AF Nikkors, and chimp, er, preview without removing my eye from the visor, it's definitely a great tool. But I hate to waste time in LR just trying to get the colors right, so the A7 will be unloaded, too, and I'll get me a D5500 again, hopefully the next body I get will focus properly with my fast lenses. I would love a mirrorless Nikon with EVF, though, but the D5500 with its pair of VR2 lenses is compact enough for me, at least for the time being. Having colors and exposure close to perfect on the first try is much more important to me now than anything else. Great DR and sharp, cheap lenses are a great plus to have, too.
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 1,003Member

    Had a fling with Canon M/M2, Fuji X-10/X-E1 and currently with a Sony A7. All of them mirrorless, you see, something Nikon doesn't make. All of them have colors that are off in my eyes, even after processing RAW files in LR, especially so on the Sony, and especially so after using various Expeed 4 Nikon DX bodies (Expeed 3 bodies' colors were off, too). Controls and ergonomics on the Ms were terrible, just bearable on the Xs and almost good enough on the A7, thanks to its very highly customizable controls. Native lenses are cheap for the EF-M mount, but terribly expensive for both X and E mounts, especially the Fujis, which cost a lot more than the equivalent Nikon or Canon full frame lenses. Shooting with an EVF lets me adjust exposure with zebras, zoom in to focus accurately with my old pre-AF Nikkors, and chimp, er, preview without removing my eye from the visor, it's definitely a great tool. But I hate to waste time in LR just trying to get the colors right, so the A7 will be unloaded, too, and I'll get me a D5500 again, hopefully the next body I get will focus properly with my fast lenses. I would love a mirrorless Nikon with EVF, though, but the D5500 with its pair of VR2 lenses is compact enough for me, at least for the time being. Having colors and exposure close to perfect on the first try is much more important to me now than anything else. Great DR and sharp, cheap lenses are a great plus to have, too.

    There is a feature in some software processing programs that let you set the colors as if it were shot on Camera "X". I am forgetting what software that was at the moment, but could be useful for you given your color preferences.

    I predict a lot of affairs with the girl called A9.

    Could be a summertime fling me ;)
  • CaMeRaQuEsTCaMeRaQuEsT Posts: 357Member

    There is a feature in some software processing programs that let you set the colors as if it were shot on Camera "X". I am forgetting what software that was at the moment, but could be useful for you given your color preferences.

    I solely use LR, when I am handling a picture I can only see the profiles of the particular camera I took the picture with, I can't find the profiles of the other cameras and mix and match. Beside LR, each camera comes with a different type of RAW handling software and it's a pain for me to learn how to work with each of them. With the Sony in particular I was so desperate I not only tried their free version of Capture One, which almost got me there, but also RawTherapee, which was even closer to nailing it but was just too unstable to use for my sanity.

    In the end, I can't really afford to use the A7 long term as I need to have a 16-35mm lens for landscape/video and Sony's is way too expensive, though it is the smallest and lightest of its kind in FF while being almost as sharp as CaNikon's. Hopefully I can get close enough results with a Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 paired with the D5500. That's really my only beef with crop sensors, the lack of UWA lenses that can give results as sharp to the very corners of the frame as their equivalent FF FOV lenses.

Sign In or Register to comment.