narsuitus
Well-known
Back in my film-only days, I primarily used a 35mm SLR and a 35mm rangefinder. I used the rangefinder when I needed to shoot concerts, funerals, golf, weddings, recording studios, clandestine candids, and other events where I needed to shoot quietly.
In my digital days, I use a digital SLR and quiet mirrorless when I need to shoot quietly.
In my digital days, I use a digital SLR and quiet mirrorless when I need to shoot quietly.
NickTrop
Veteran
Weddings or -any- situation where you're taking a lot of shots. Any event, I'd argue. You never use bust mode? You should. Burst mode will deplete batteries. 310 shots on a charge is not a lot.
Mirrorless has advantages. One disadvantage is battery consumption. Big advantage for DSLRs.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I have never used burst mode. Never needed it for my work. Reminds me of the anecdotal reports of photographers on the rim of the Grand Canyon with their camera on tripods shooting landscapes on burst mode.
Michael Markey
Veteran
I very rarely use burst because my timing (with horses)is usually pretty good .
Even if I have the camera set to burst I usually just take a single shot .
Sometimes the action can get very hectic indeed and burst can be useful.
In those cases I`d rather paly safe with a DSLR rather than one of my Sony cams.
presspass
filmshooter
Maybe some day I will fall into the mirrorless trap, but I don't expect it to happen any time soon. I shoot DSLR Canons for work and film cameras for my own stuff. I cannot imagine how focus peaking would work at a football, basketball, or soccer game. I think they are fine for those who want the features they offer, but I cannot see them fitting into my workflow.
Huss
Veteran
Where did you get that info? People are getting 1500 shots per charge with the Z7, and I cannot see the Z6 being less using the same battery.
https://blog.mingthein.com/2018/09/29/2018-nikon-z7-24-70-review/
"23/10/18 update: After a few cycles on the batteries, it seems that I’m now seeing more like 1200-1400 shots per charge. By comparison, shooting the same way with my D850 yields about 2000, a PEN-F about 600-700, and the A7RII about 150. Hasselblad longevity is not comparable as I leave those cameras on all the time due to startup time. In short: whatever Nikon have done to optimise battery life on the Z7, it’s phenomenal."
NickTrop
Veteran
Well then good. Mirrorless is for you. The Nikon D750 has a battery life rating of 1230 shots. The Nikon Z6 has a rating of 310 shots. That's about a 4X increase in battery life in favor of the DSLR. But that's not a disadvantage for mirrorless. Gotchya.
Alls I know is that digicams I've owned had a battery rating of around 260 shots. I was always concerned about battery life. I never worry about that with DSLR.
Video? Advantage mirrorless.
Battery life? Advantage DSLR.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
When you've shot film for four decades, and are use to carrying around extra rolls of film, carrying around an extra battery for digital is no big deal. Advantages and disadvantages depend a lot on your shooting style and perspective. Some photographers need ISO 102,800 or 20fps or 4K video. For many though, they are no advantage.
Huss
Veteran
NickTrop
Veteran
I've shot film for five decades. I accept that these technologies are different and the bar has been raised in terms of "stopages" to tend to your gear and what digital has to offer over film. Just because I'm "used to" putting rolls in my camera doesn't mean I want to go back to that or accept that as the norm when it now isn't. It's 2018, not 1974. In 1998 my PC had 512 MB of ram too and had a dial-up modem. Doesn't mean I want slow internet speed because I'm "used to it".
ptpdprinter
Veteran
And yet a couple of months ago you were urging everyone to follow your lead and run out and buy a used D600 even though its specifications (ISO 25,600, 5.5fps, 1080p video, 24MP, etc) are no longer the "norm" among FF cameras. It's 2018, not 2012, after all. You seem to be pretty fast at making everybody else's decisions about advantages, disadvantages, compromises, and value. It's just possible that other photographers' requirements don't mirror your own, and what is important to you is of no consequence to others.
By the way, you mentioned the battery life of the D750. Have you already upgraded from the D600?
creenus
Established
The Nikon and Canon seem interesting and I'm sure some people will love them. The lenses so far seem to be rather slow, and I know that with ISO manipulation that is less of a factor. But I'm old school, and I like somewhat fast lenses, so I've gone with Nikon DLSR. They have a series of affordable lenses (at least compared to Leica) in f1.8, so that's what I went with: 20mm, 50mm and 85mm, all f1.8. I do like the option of small depth of field. And I can always use these lenses with a used F6 in the future. Or a Z-series with an adapter.
Still love and use my M2, though!
Still love and use my M2, though!
Canon has an F2 zoom and which lens is slower than 1.8?
creenus
Established
No worries. =)
Like I said, I'm old school. I like primes rather than zooms, which are generally more convenient than primes. There are times when I'm shooting pottery pieces at the college I work at where a zoom would come in handy. Not saying one is better than the other. Canon has great gear - not touting one over the other. They both offer excellent lenses. And fast zooms. I had to choose a brand and I went Nikon, rather than Canon. I've always shot Olympus OM gear for film. Pentax makes good stuff. They're all decent. So what?
To me there're all tools in a bag. The only gear to which I feel any emotional attachment is Leica RF because it's fun and involves more of my judgement, if I have any that day.
Thanks for the reply!
Like I said, I'm old school. I like primes rather than zooms, which are generally more convenient than primes. There are times when I'm shooting pottery pieces at the college I work at where a zoom would come in handy. Not saying one is better than the other. Canon has great gear - not touting one over the other. They both offer excellent lenses. And fast zooms. I had to choose a brand and I went Nikon, rather than Canon. I've always shot Olympus OM gear for film. Pentax makes good stuff. They're all decent. So what?
To me there're all tools in a bag. The only gear to which I feel any emotional attachment is Leica RF because it's fun and involves more of my judgement, if I have any that day.
Thanks for the reply!
Last edited:
Michael Markey
Veteran
I use Canon and Leica lenses.
I don`t regard my Canon 85/1.2 as slow and neither is their 50/1.2 .
I'm not a zoom user either but my point is that a f2 zoom is pretty fast. And also, the new primes are all 1.8 or faster.
Dogman
Veteran
The talk about burst modes and being able to shoot a thousand pictures on one battery charge leaves me with a grin. I can recall when wedding photographers shot 12-exposure rolls with Rolleiflex and Mamiya TLRs. But times have changed along with the methods photographers use. I'm 100% digital and almost all of that is what's now referred to as "mirrorless". But I still shoot like I did when I shot film...well, when I shot with a motorized camera using film. I cannot imagine shooting 1000 images at a wedding. Or any other event, including the Apocalypse.
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
Why? Seems a funny comment without any context of what someone shoots...
Contarama
Well-known
Full auto burst mode = birder???
With a Z I would shoot it 4k then pull the stills
With a Z I would shoot it 4k then pull the stills
Archlich
Well-known
Played with the Z6 and the Z7 last week. They are smaller than an equivalent DSLR, but retains the same beefy comfortable grip. The lenses are not huge - the 24-70/4 is actually quite compact, smaller than anything ever offered with a DSLR.
So why the argument at all?
So why the argument at all?