Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
With two bodies and lenses, for me there are no problems.
I have always used professional cameras, which are usually
large and heavy. After almost 50 years of using cameras,
it seems that I'v got used to them.
Pro photography is much more forgiving than pro video. I see pros hauling two full bodies with huge zooms. While some veteran camera operators I know have ruined shoulders.
I finally tried to hold 5D MKII in hand by its grip. Comfy, but not for couple of hours
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It’s fascinating me among all of A7 most. By its size and weight. Especially with 35 2.8 ZE.
Any compact AF 20-21mm lens what is working with it ?
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Gotta agree on this. Not the lightest or easiest to carry, but has gone thru rain storms and blizzards and scorching heat and just keeps knocking out the images.
Best,
-Tim
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I have RP. Here is no compact lenses in RF mount. Only 50 1.8.
Compact Canon EF lenses looks utterly ugly on it via bulky adapter.
R is just as heavy and bulky as 5D MKII.
CLAdictic
Established
Most rugged, Canon 7D, most used Leica CL digital.
Canyongazer
Canyongazer
For digital, Nikon D800E which I've had since 2013.
Nobody asked, but for film, Nikon F (no meter):
according to S #, it was built in summer of 1961.
I've owned it since 1972 after forking over $75 (body only)
Nobody asked, but for film, Nikon F (no meter):
according to S #, it was built in summer of 1961.
I've owned it since 1972 after forking over $75 (body only)
David Hughes
David Hughes
If we were looking at a series of cameras rather than just one then my most used would be the Panasonic and Leica series starting with the Panasonic LX2 and continuing via both makes to the LX100.
For digital SLR's it would be the Olympus E series.
Regards, David
For digital SLR's it would be the Olympus E series.
Regards, David
JeffS7444
Well-known
But I still say that the extra 191 grams of the A7R4 is well worth it:
https://camerasize.com/compare/#487,826
Size-wise, most of the difference is in the grip.
And as a bonus, when used with APS-C glass, it still delivers 24 megapixels. Used with the pixel-shift feature, about 4x the resolution can be had. And while the Sony SELP1650 zoom isn't a great lens, it's inexpensive, tiny and very useful.
You forgot about the difference of about $2500-3000 between the original A7 used and the A7R4.
JeffS7444
Well-known
But spread out over 10 years, I don't think it's unreasonable.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Even original A7R megapixels are too high for my needs.
Does Sony A7 have different RAW files choices? I select 12 or less MP on Canon.
If camera weights more than 640 grams here is no reason to over pay for something I already have.
Does Sony A7 have different RAW files choices? I select 12 or less MP on Canon.
If camera weights more than 640 grams here is no reason to over pay for something I already have.
JeffS7444
Well-known
Are pixels critically endangered and in need of conservation? If not, don't worry about having too many of them: The greater the resolving power of the sensor, the less you need to rely on optical low pass filtering to reduce aliasing, so there are visible advantages even if your final output is scaled down.
Regarding availability of smaller lenses for Canon RF: It took Sony 11 years to evolve E-mount to where it is today, while the Canon RF-mount is only 3 years old: I imagine that by 2029, there will be many more RF lenses to choose from.
maddoc
... likes film again.
The Leitz Super-Angulon-M does for sure not work well with the A7 (no AF of course) but I bought the 21/1.5 TTArtisan in M-mount. Also no AF but the lens is good, especially for the price.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Talk of what we get delivered in pixels is all very well but do we really need them all?
A few very simple sums tells me how many I need as I never print more than the metric version of 12x8 on A4 paper. And for the ones I never print but only look at on the screen I don't need more than 2 megapixels. Looking at a QHD monitor the other day I realised it had a 3 megapixel screen so I reckoned over 5 mp's in the camera would be a waste of a lot of different things.
Of course, all the pixels in the world won't compensate for a middle of the road lens, poor exposure and poor focussing but they are easily remedied; until the camera goes belly up and you find it can't be repaired.
Regards, David
A few very simple sums tells me how many I need as I never print more than the metric version of 12x8 on A4 paper. And for the ones I never print but only look at on the screen I don't need more than 2 megapixels. Looking at a QHD monitor the other day I realised it had a 3 megapixel screen so I reckoned over 5 mp's in the camera would be a waste of a lot of different things.
Of course, all the pixels in the world won't compensate for a middle of the road lens, poor exposure and poor focussing but they are easily remedied; until the camera goes belly up and you find it can't be repaired.
Regards, David
I’m with JeffS7444… better to have too much than too little. It depends on what you are doing with your photos. If you show in galleries, you better believe more is better. If you just send to family digitally, then ok, maybe more isn’t better. Context is key.
besk
Well-known
Most advanced Sony 3C with Robot 30mm lens.
Most used - Cell phone
Most used - Cell phone
David Hughes
David Hughes
Exactly but do we all exhibit in galleries? I don't think we do.
I worry about people getting wound up and into debt because they think they don't have enough pixels etc and buying more when, in reality, they already have too much.
I can remember at about the time we went from 5 to (gasp!) 8 megapixel cameras being assured that we could now stop printing A4 photo's and go up to A3 (or A3+ to have a decent border; that's 12" x 18" and then the half inch border all round. At about 200dpi, compared to exhibition standard which is about 300dpi but the printer makes a lot of difference.)
The problem is that I am just one old git on a forum and I'm up against big business with 4 full page spreads in glossy magazines every week telling people what they need...
I think the print should be the key to it all; print size, DoF maths and so on and so forth but I'm glad we basically agree.
Regards, David
PS For Godfrey, years ago when the Olympus E-1 appeared I saw and was very impressed by demo prints the rep. had and scrounged a couple and a huge fat book from him. I guess they were done on their posh P-400(?) printer.
Last edited:
I understand, it’s a personal issue. For my last show in Italy the gallery wanted 20x30” prints. They loved a photo of mine that was 10mp. They insisted on 20x30” and I tried to insist it be smaller. They just decided to use a different photo instead. If I had my way always, I’d have no problem with small prints. But sometimes others díctate these choices. It’s expected that digital looks clear even up close. So, now I use 24mp or more.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I only have 1TB HDD for active, recent media. It gets quickly infested by 24MP and larger files. Those are useless pigs which are slowing everything for absolutely zero reasons.
Just in case, “HDD are cheap” is BS in my situation. I have access for free 1 TB ones.
And I have two 5 TB. As mirrored all media storage. Again 5TB is maximum reasonable priced HDD size at this time. It fills up quick with just HD home videos.
As for 11 years of Sony. With A7 they came with 35 2.8 ZA E, which still sets the record for compact 35 FF AF.
They have close to it Samyang now and light Tamron primes.
Z, RF have next to none. With something fishy going with RF.
Same as for Sony third party made UWA and tele, but then something happened.
Rumours are Canon went against it.
narsuitus
Well-known
When I first started shooting digital, I calculated that I needed about 36mp to obtain the same image quality I was able to obtain with film cameras. Now, I use 24mm on a full-frame camera and am very satisfied with the digital image quality.