Sony A7iii to Nikon Z6

twist said:
...but a phone Inc its lens is substantially smaller. Aren't phones becoming so expensive!!
Click to expand...

Honestly I could count on half a hand the amount of pics I've taken with my phone last 6mths. I don't care about the quality in this case, more the ergonomics, I hate using my phone in general outside of its intended use.

Smaller aye, more uncomfortable and fiddly to work with - definitely!

I laugh at people when they tell me they got a "free" iphone or whatever - no, you did not, you're on the highest end bill to get that privilege and I bet most who do so don't even use a fraction of their allowed data let alone go above their 'free' calls. They forget they're paying a premium per month well above what the average pay-as-you-go customer does. That is what pays for your pricey phone, these phone companies love those guys.
 
Last edited:
Well guys I had a busy day not photographer wise something else.

Anyway had a read through all this post etc and yup I agree hand up it bloody gas. I am staying as i am.
 
twist said:
Gasp, you paid at minimum 1500 quid for that itty bitty sensor.
Click to expand...
Nope, not even close ;) I love the m4/3 format for travel etc, but the main reason on the recent purchases was health related and struggling with the FF superteles (y). That being said, I've done some landscape analysis and up to A3 size I'm struggling to see a difference between m4/3 and FF :eek: Even then you get the hi res mode with the EM1-II so the only benefit of FF now is the DR for this. DOn't get me wrong, there's still aspects of FF that I prefer (shallow DOF and low light) but in terms of IQ there's not enough of a difference for me to worry. In good light I actually think the Panny 100-400mm is giving me sharper images than my Tamron 150-600mm.
 
snerkler said:
Nope, not even close ;) I love the m4/3 format for travel etc, but the main reason on the recent purchases was health related and struggling with the FF superteles (y). That being said, I've done some landscape analysis and up to A3 size I'm struggling to see a difference between m4/3 and FF :eek: Even then you get the hi res mode with the EM1-II so the only benefit of FF now is the DR for this. DOn't get me wrong, there's still aspects of FF that I prefer (shallow DOF and low light) but in terms of IQ there's not enough of a difference for me to worry. In good light I actually think the Panny 100-400mm is giving me sharper images than my Tamron 150-600mm.
Click to expand...

Tamron isn't that great of a lens tbh. It's good for the price and the reach but no where as good as 100-400 from Sony/canon/Fuji etc.

I am thinking of running two systems myself but I am in love with my FF 42mp sensor lol. Hate the size though!
Wish someone would make a decent A7 sized body again :(
 
nandbytes said:
Tamron isn't that great of a lens tbh. It's good for the price and the reach but no where as good as 100-400 from Sony/canon/Fuji etc.

I am thinking of running two systems myself but I am in love with my FF 42mp sensor lol. Hate the size though!
Wish someone would make a decent A7 sized body again :(
Click to expand...
The Tamron's pretty decent actually as long as you don't go above 550mm, from my comparisons it wasn't much different (if at all) to the Nikon 100-400mm. The Sony 100-400mm is a better class though, but then it should be for the price (y). I tried the Olympus 300mm f4 out last week, now that was impressive (y)
 
snerkler said:
The Tamron's pretty decent actually as long as you don't go above 550mm, from my comparisons it wasn't much different (if at all) to the Nikon 100-400mm. The Sony 100-400mm is a better class though, but then it should be for the price (y). I tried the Olympus 300mm f4 out last week, now that was impressive (y)
Click to expand...

The oly 300mm f4 huge unlike Nikon 300mm PF. They really missed the trick there I think.
Time for these mirrorless manufacturers to learn from canikon for making smaller telephoto lenses.
 
nandbytes said:
The oly 300mm f4 huge unlike Nikon 300mm PF. They really missed the trick there I think.
Time for these mirrorless manufacturers to learn from canikon for making smaller telephoto lenses.
Click to expand...
I agree I said the same thing, they should have made the 300mm f4 around 800g rather than 1200g. I'm not sure what patents Nikon have on their fresnel glass though.
 
rookies said:
I prob will get some ear bashing for this.

Lastnight I was thinking wether to give the Z6 a go but after reading around the Z6 does produce some stunning images for the AF and Tracking is now here near as good.. What I like about the Z6 is the top screen it just one thing i have missed
Click to expand...
as i told u via messanger. DONT DO IT!!!
 
rookies said:
Well guys I had a busy day not photographer wise something else.

Anyway had a read through all this post etc and yup I agree hand up it bloody gas. I am staying as i am.
Click to expand...
With significant new firmware features due in April the Sony will only improve.
 
@snerkler yes the em1 ii is a very good camera too there is a landscape photography local to me that use it he loved it.

Anyway guys don’t worry I am changing was just a spur of a moment.
 
nandbytes said:
The oly 300mm f4 huge unlike Nikon 300mm PF. They really missed the trick there I think.
Time for these mirrorless manufacturers to learn from canikon for making smaller telephoto lenses.
Click to expand...

It was the oncoming and inevitable march of mirrorless that forced Nikon to do the PF glass, up until that point they have very much been bigger = more pro = better, mirrorless demonstrably changed that. When they made those lenses they were still saying they weren’t interested in mirrorless.

Besides, PF has some drawbacks and I suspect Oly couldn’t have got the astonishing dual IBIS to work with that kind of lens design.
 
rookies said:
Well guys I had a busy day not photographer wise something else.

Anyway had a read through all this post etc and yup I agree hand up it bloody gas. I am staying as i am.
Click to expand...

Yup @ GAS. :)
 
Nawty said:
It was the oncoming and inevitable march of mirrorless that forced Nikon to do the PF glass, up until that point they have very much been bigger = more pro = better, mirrorless demonstrably changed that. When they made those lenses they were still saying they weren’t interested in mirrorless.

Besides, PF has some drawbacks and I suspect Oly couldn’t have got the astonishing dual IBIS to work with that kind of lens design.
Click to expand...

Not sure why a PF lens wouldn't work as well with IBIS. It works with IBIS on Z7 while adapted. Sure the performance wasn't as good as Oly's but in general FF bodies aren't as good as m43.
That lens is one of the reasons I would like to go for nikon mirrorless. even with adapter its pretty small for a 300mm f4
 
nandbytes said:
Not sure why a PF lens wouldn't work as well with IBIS. It works with IBIS on Z7 while adapted. Sure the performance wasn't as good as Oly's but in general FF bodies aren't as good as m43.
That lens is one of the reasons I would like to go for nikon mirrorless. even with adapter its pretty small for a 300mm f4
Click to expand...

I actually meant the sync IS, there is IS in the body and the lens that work together to give 6 stops or something crazy like that, you can actually get decent handheld video at 800mm FFE which is nuts. I’m not a lens engineer though so only speculating.
 
Nawty said:
It was the oncoming and inevitable march of mirrorless that forced Nikon to do the PF glass, up until that point they have very much been bigger = more pro = better, mirrorless demonstrably changed that. When they made those lenses they were still saying they weren’t interested in mirrorless.

Besides, PF has some drawbacks and I suspect Oly couldn’t have got the astonishing dual IBIS to work with that kind of lens design.
Click to expand...
Interesting, what are the drawbacks of PF?
 
Aside from complexity, contrast and light transmittance (T-Stop), so I'm lead to believe.

Two absolutely critical things that are actually important to how sharp a lens is and how fast it is, although no one ever bothers with them as they detract from the nice story of "but it's f/2.8 innit".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top