- Messages
- 25,300
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I think that’s more to do with Sonys terrible design than a difference in the technology.
I find the R6 a pleasure to use, definitely similar to all my previous Canon SLR’s and yet so much more capable.
Why hasn't mirroless taken over?
- Thread starter Crotal Bell
- Start date
I find the R6 a pleasure to use, definitely similar to all my previous Canon SLR’s and yet so much more capable.
- Messages
- 23,629
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Again I would suggest that’s preference and familiarity. The latest gen Sonys have really good design and I find the button and dial placement excellent. I find Sony cameras easier to navigate than Canon, but I’m sure that’s another case of familiarity on my behalf.
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't find Sony design terrible. You get used to almost anything which isn't genuinely awful and some cameras are or were just bar of soap shaped really. The Sonys aren't that bad
Wait to you try a 645z - everything just falls to hand on that camera.
- Messages
- 23,629
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Tbh I don’t like the gen 1’s and 2’s. Gen 3 are good except the lack of room between grip and lens. I also prefer having the drive/AF mode dial found on the A9, A9ii, and A1, made a BIG difference for me moving from the A7RIVI don't find Sony design terrible. You get used to almost anything which isn't genuinely awful and some cameras are or were just bar of soap shaped really. The Sonys aren't that bad
- Messages
- 23,629
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
It offers you more reliable AF, and for portraits Eye AF meaning you can concentrate on composition more. It also has a wider AF spread meaning you are not as restricted in composition, and can track wildlife further around the frame.
So the advantages are there, it’s just a case of whether you want them and/or are willing to pay for them
It's all a case of familiarity - I've used Windows right from it's early days, and can find where the setting is for pretty much anything is without a real problem (and that includes setting in most applications on Windows) - but if one of my daughters tells me she can't print from her iPad and I don't know where to start to try and help.Like a friend in IT once said: All the OSes suck, just pick the one that sucks the least
For me, that is Nikon, but I learned the Nikon SLR / DSLR system and find Canon's DSLR system to be odd having not used it more than a few minutes.. I have never seen Sony's.
But in reality, I know it is only a question of learning how to use the system (although some IT systems can be downright "bang head against the wall" confusing, such as Windows' nested menus / options / features compared to Mac OS. Linux is another story all together...).
Same with DSLR / Mirrorless - I've always used Sony, starting with the old A-Mount A200, and the menu system seems fine to me. With another brand I'd be guessing on how to find something.
I guess both are a case of "better the Devil you know..."
- Messages
- 9,242
- Edit My Images
- No
Back when men were real men, women were real women and ergonomics hadn't been invented...
...this style of camera was the apex. You either learned to cope with all its peculiarities or you stuck with a box camera. The first thing you had to learn was how to hold it steady - without breaking it or your wrist (and this was a "baby" Graphic)
...this style of camera was the apex. You either learned to cope with all its peculiarities or you stuck with a box camera. The first thing you had to learn was how to hold it steady - without breaking it or your wrist (and this was a "baby" Graphic)
Last edited:
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,682
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Possibly too big and heavy for me. I like compact, light and unobtrusive kit.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,682
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, I already mentioned most of that in the beginning part of the post you quoted
For what I use my camera for, I cannot yet justify spending the amount of money most manufacturers are asking for a semi-pro mirrorless systems (plus all the new glass I would have to purchase, or use the F to Z adapter).
Two years ago I purchased a Nikon D7500 new / on special offer with the 18-140 kit lens for slighlty more than half of what they are asking for it now (it was a pre-christmas sale here locally), it seems that Nikon has increased the prices on even their DSLR to push people to their mirrorless systems. I also noticed that a D6 is Fr. 2'000 more than the Z9.. So they are making an effort to convert more people to mirrorless, just they have not yet reached my level of cheap barstewardness
One possibility for people wanting the advantages of mirrorless whilst limiting the costs is Micro Four Thirds, It's a x2 crop system but even so will be more than adequate for many peoples needs and as it's been out a long time there are bargains to be had on the used market. Most of my MFT kit was bought used and if you like small and light kit you can put together some compact and light combinations. Arguably, all MFT lacks is the ability to give you very shallow depth of field and higher ISO capabilities.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,682
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Indeed.
It is possible to match FF with MFT (and APS-C) in terms of depth of field, you need only apply the same crop factor to the F stop as one does to lens to get the equivalent. Northrup did a video on this not too long ago. While not 100% perfect, it is more than close enough. This works up until a point however as when you have a FF lens shooting at f1.4 you would need an MFT lens at f0.7 to get an equivalent depth of field, this sort of lens likely does not exist for MFT or if it did would likely be ruinously expensive... I would imagine kind of like Leica's Noctilux f0.95
The widest aperture lens I've had for MFT was a 25mm f0.95 and I also used a FF 50mm f1.2 on MFT. Whist the aperture value remains the same size to get the FoV you'd get with FF you have to increase the camera to subject distance so that's another issue.
Mostly I use f1.7 and f1.8 lenses on MFT and shoot wide open to maybe f5.6 and only very occasionally stop down further. So, you're not going to get the exact same picture you'd get with a FF and 50mm f1.8 with MFT at 25mm and f1.8 but you'll be able to get the same sort of look you'd get from FF at 50mm and f3.6 with MFT at 25mm and f1.8 quite easily and possibly with a faster shutter speed and/or lower ISO and if you like and choose your kit accordingly the MFT set up could be a smaller and lighter package.
The reason for mentioning this is that anyone with an APS-C or FF DSLR set up could potentially give mirrorless a try quite cheaply if willing to try MFT. The advantages offered compared to a DSLR could include in view DoF and exposure, the ability to focus accurately anywhere in the frame and eye/face detect.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,527
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, I already mentioned most of that in the beginning part of the post you quoted
For what I use my camera for, I cannot yet justify spending the amount of money most manufacturers are asking for a semi-pro mirrorless systems (plus all the new glass I would have to purchase, or use the F to Z adapter).
Two years ago I purchased a Nikon D7500 new / on special offer with the 18-140 kit lens for slighlty more than half of what they are asking for it now (it was a pre-christmas sale here locally), it seems that Nikon has increased the prices on even their DSLR to push people to their mirrorless systems. I also noticed that a D6 is Fr. 2'000 more than the Z9.. So they are making an effort to convert more people to mirrorless, just they have not yet reached my level of cheap barstewardness
3 years ago I moved from a D610 outfit to a Sony A7III. Virtually all focussing was better, but especially for anything that moved and also lower light situations like a band in a pub. I also got a more useful dynamic range, particularly shadow recovery, and expensive but much better lenses.
These all addressed what I'd felt were inadequacy in the kit I had, and feel the change was very worthwhile. Everyone's wants and needs are different.
- Messages
- 3,267
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
Indeed.
It is possible to match FF with MFT (and APS-C) in terms of depth of field, you need only apply the same crop factor to the F stop as one does to lens to get the equivalent. Northrup did a video on this not too long ago. While not 100% perfect, it is more than close enough. This works up until a point however as when you have a FF lens shooting at f1.4 you would need an MFT lens at f0.7 to get an equivalent depth of field, this sort of lens likely does not exist for MFT or if it did would likely be ruinously expensive... I would imagine kind of like Leica's Noctilux f0.95
While I am in the "FF" is more flexible camp, but while you may not be able to match the shallowest depth of field, in "everything kept the same" comparisons, that isn't how people take photographs in the real world, and while useful to know, for most (many) people it isn't really that relevant.
To start with, a lot of the time, it's a "lack of depth of field" that is the problem. Landscapes, close ups, telephoto shots of birds and sports etc are all subjects where you are usually looking for more depth of field, not less. I will explain the last example as there is often concern about not getting a soft enough background with bird photographs when using MFT. But even with MFT, long lenses (see below) still give pleasantly blurred back grounds, and the small amount of extra depth field increases the chances of eyes and beaks both being in focus.
With portraits, and I know this isn't always possible, you have a couple of options. The first is to simply increase the distance between your subject and the background, and to choose your background carefully, ie avoid strong patterns, or try to get the background in shadow etc
The second is to move further away and use a longer lens. Although focal length has no direct impact on depth of field, by moving further away you change the relative magnification of the subject and the background, which results in a softer background.
There is nothing novel about these portrait techniques, as they have been used by portrait photographers for ever, they just become more important when you are using small sensor cameras and need to be more careful with how you manage your backgrounds.
The increased flexibility of FF (and f1.4 lenses) is that, when needed, it's easier to increase depth of field than reduce it i.e, stop the lens down more and use a higher ISO or use a tripod with a slower shutter speed (but that isn't always an option).
I'm not arguing there aren't any situations when the reduced depth of field capability of FF isn't of value, but generally, for most users, I think it's importance is exaggerated. Only for the very few, is it a good reason to avoid MFT.
Finally, as you suggested, the calculations show there is a 2 stops difference in depth of field between FF and MFT. One stop difference between APS and MFT.
However, In practice, it never works exactly as calculated.
Depth of field is a bit of an allusion brought about by how the human eye resolves detail, meaning that different circumstances can effect our perception of "apparent" depth of field
For example, Very sharp lenses can give a extremely well defined plane of focus that give the impression of very limited depth of field. For a similar reason digital sensors give less depth of field than film did.
Low contrast, low detail subjects can give the impression of greater depth of field, where as high contrast, high detail subject can make the fall off in depth of field more noticeable.
I've found that the only way to get to grips with depth of field is to take lots of photographs and pay attention to what happens when you change aperture, subject distance, background distance, types of background, types of lighting and types of subject. The calculations can still be useful as a starting point.
I've used sensor sizes from 1" to full frame, and film cameras from FF to 7x5, and in all the comparisons I've made the "practical" depth of field has only ever "very approximately" followed the theory.
- Messages
- 2,051
- Name
- T
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I still have a minolta X700 35mm film camera and I really enjoy using it nad it must be 30+ years old.
My 7Dii is build very well and I am sure that will solider on for many. many years !
The R7 I have on order,....well I am not sure that will last as long as the 7Dii as the EVF & rear screen must have a shelf life and the body is not a solid as the 7Dii.
Being smaller I can put it in my jacket pocket.
Now my canon L lenses are built very well and feel very, very solid. Modern smaller form mirrorless lenses are made from plastic and some mental and I sure just can not stand up to tough life !
My 7Dii is build very well and I am sure that will solider on for many. many years !
The R7 I have on order,....well I am not sure that will last as long as the 7Dii as the EVF & rear screen must have a shelf life and the body is not a solid as the 7Dii.
Being smaller I can put it in my jacket pocket.
Now my canon L lenses are built very well and feel very, very solid. Modern smaller form mirrorless lenses are made from plastic and some mental and I sure just can not stand up to tough life !
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
All these Canon EF lenses will work flawlessly on the EF to RF adapter. So - you can enjoy their rugged build - and some of the newer features of the R7. No need to change any of the lenses. Adapt and enjoy.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,682
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Unfortunately the fashion in some circles is for almost zero dof and you can sometimes see this even on this site.
- Messages
- 9,242
- Edit My Images
- No
Controlling depth of field is the key. Here's one where the man being out of focus makes the picture more appealing to me...
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,682
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I've posted this link before but here it is again for anyone who hasn't read this or similar...
In Defense of Depth
From Russian Noir by Jason Eskenazi By John Kennerdell If there's a single received idea that fires up the imagination of my young photographer friends these days, it's that for "professional looking" photographs they should buy fast lenses and then...
theonlinephotographer.typepad.com
- Messages
- 23,527
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I've posted this link before but here it is again for anyone who hasn't read this or similar...
In Defense of Depth
From Russian Noir by Jason Eskenazi By John Kennerdell If there's a single received idea that fires up the imagination of my young photographer friends these days, it's that for "professional looking" photographs they should buy fast lenses and then...theonlinephotographer.typepad.com
Depth of field is one of the tools to be used in the construction of an image to help convey an impression. I like shallow dof in some of the images I make because it helps present a particular way of looking at things (and is very helpful for subject isolation. But not every photo benefits, and where the picture calls for it, I'll do my best to generate a long dof. I like the CHOICE, just as I like the ability to choose to distort with a wide angle or compress with a telephoto. Disliking a shallow depth of field is like disliking someone using a 24mm lens for landscape, rather than a 50.
And y'know - I like it.
- Messages
- 7,914
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have never been much of a fan of shallow depth of field.
It certainly has its uses to make something stand out from a background.
But in the great scheme of things that is a specialist need. And it is more often the case that greater depth of field is more useful than less.
Generally speaking moderate maximum aperture lenses have less aberration and drawing problems. And can give higher quality results at more normal aperture ranges.
Very wide aperture lenses demand more and larger elements, some with rare earth and others with non spherical surfaces. This leads to larger, heavier and much more expensive lenses, that are equally difficult to make. And all this to match the image quality of more simple lenses of moderate maximum apertures.
This is not to say such lenses, particularly long focus ones are not very useful to wild life and sports photography, and at shorter lengths for portraiture.
It certainly has its uses to make something stand out from a background.
But in the great scheme of things that is a specialist need. And it is more often the case that greater depth of field is more useful than less.
Generally speaking moderate maximum aperture lenses have less aberration and drawing problems. And can give higher quality results at more normal aperture ranges.
Very wide aperture lenses demand more and larger elements, some with rare earth and others with non spherical surfaces. This leads to larger, heavier and much more expensive lenses, that are equally difficult to make. And all this to match the image quality of more simple lenses of moderate maximum apertures.
This is not to say such lenses, particularly long focus ones are not very useful to wild life and sports photography, and at shorter lengths for portraiture.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,682
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Depth of field is one of the tools to be used in the construction of an image to help convey an impression. I like shallow dof in some of the images I make because it helps present a particular way of looking at things (and is very helpful for subject isolation. But not every photo benefits, and where the picture calls for it, I'll do my best to generate a long dof. I like the CHOICE, just as I like the ability to choose to distort with a wide angle or compress with a telephoto. Disliking a shallow depth of field is like disliking someone using a 24mm lens for landscape, rather than a 50.
And y'know - I like it.
I do take shallow DoF pictures and I've just posted two in the Sony thread but I think it can be overdone and it doesn't IMO suit every image. For example tight head and shoulder shots with just one eye in the DoF, maybe a few might be nice but they'd need to be the needles in the haystack of deeper DoF shots for me.
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not quite - FTZ means F to Z, or Nikon F (SLR & DSLR) mount to Nikon's new mirrorless Z mount. The adapter only works properly (autofocuses) with Nikon's newest lenses, which are those with built-in AF motors (AF-I, AF-S and AF-P). With all other lenses autofocus does not work. AF and AF‑D lenses become manual focus only.
- Messages
- 23,527
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
Not sure I've ever seen a photo from you really exploiting shallow DoF, but then it's not your preference. The pix are nice enough, but f1.8 on a 35mm lens at a significant distance....
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,682
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Not sure I've ever seen a photo from you really exploiting shallow DoF, but then it's not your preference. The pix are nice enough, but f1.8 on a 35mm lens at a significant distance....
Distance gives some context and DoF and so was appropriate for those pictures. Take the picture at a much closer distance and there's be no context but there would be a lot of bokeh, and some do like that.
Another 35mm f1.8 which I also like.
This is one of my favourites and it's printed and framed. 85mm f1.8. There's little context but I know where it was taken. We were picking brambles hence the old clothes.
But most of my pictures taken with my FF A7 are stopped down.
One last one. I put this in our wedding album. 50mm at f2.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,267
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
I take flower photographs with my 300mm at F4 (on FF), and although it's tricky getting the focus in the right place, I like the very soft colours it produces in both the foreground and background. A great benefit of using f4 is that you can usually get a decent shutter speed, which is great as flowers never stand still.Depth of field is one of the tools to be used in the construction of an image to help convey an impression. I like shallow dof in some of the images I make because it helps present a particular way of looking at things (and is very helpful for subject isolation. But not every photo benefits, and where the picture calls for it, I'll do my best to generate a long dof. I like the CHOICE, just as I like the ability to choose to distort with a wide angle or compress with a telephoto. Disliking a shallow depth of field is like disliking someone using a 24mm lens for landscape, rather than a 50.
And y'know - I like it.
They are really a bit too "pretty" for my taste but when I'm in the mood I enjoy making them. My dream for this is a 135mm f2 Milvus, but I can't see that happening, not in my lifetime anyway !!
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,682
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I have an old Minolta Rokkor 135mm f2.8 which I have used for flowers on both my Sony A7 and MFT cameras. I've also used it with a close focus lens fitted. My favourite flower lens was my Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro but I sold that when I went from DSLR to mirrorless.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,267
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
135/150 is a nice focal length for flower closeups. I've still have my 55 and 105mm micro-nikkors that I use, and used to have a 200mm micro-nikkor, but 135 just feels like the right focal length.
The thing with the Milvus is that it focuses very close for a non-macro lens and has very good performance wide open, where I would want to use it. It's also a great focal length for picking out sections in the landscape. I find the 105, both too long and too short for landscape. My first choice for landscape is an 85mm, which I used for years but no longer have, and the 200 was always too long.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,154
- Name
- Steve, Coventry, England
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I wonder if a shallow DoF makes or breaks a photo?
It some times looks good in a photo where present, and sometimes may have helped a photo if it had been present.
Maybe that is why I don't feel a restriction with M43, I very rarely take a shot concentrating on getting a shallow DoF, and never don't take a shot because I can't get it.
I think it is a technical aspect as much as a visual one, ie a photographer would notice, but it probably would make little difference to any body else whether they liked the shot or not.
It some times looks good in a photo where present, and sometimes may have helped a photo if it had been present.
Maybe that is why I don't feel a restriction with M43, I very rarely take a shot concentrating on getting a shallow DoF, and never don't take a shot because I can't get it.
I think it is a technical aspect as much as a visual one, ie a photographer would notice, but it probably would make little difference to any body else whether they liked the shot or not.
- Messages
- 25,300
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
This assumption trips up lots of photographers; a non-photographer struggles to define good composition, correct DoF, exposure etc.
But bet your bottom dollar they know a ‘good’ photo when they see one. They might not have the language to articulate it, in fact they’ll often fall to ‘you must have a good camera’. But don’t be fooled into thinking that ‘liking’ a shot has nothing to do with how technically good it is.
As always, the gear and the techniques are just the tools we use to communicate our vision. If the tools work but the vision is rubbish, it’s a rubbish photo, but if we succeed in creating our vision, and our vision isn’t rubbish, we’ve successfully created a photograph that communicates ‘something’.
- Messages
- 7,901
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
But if it's a picture of a sunset/kitten/baby it doesn't matter how out of focus/heavily pixelated/poorly composed it is people will love it!
- Messages
- 9,242
- Edit My Images
- No
There are two types of photographer: those who know that "technical quality" matters more than "impact" and those who know that "impact" matters more than "technical quality".But if it's a picture of a sunset/kitten/baby it doesn't matter how out of focus/heavily pixelated/poorly composed it is people will love it!
Then there are those horrible people who just get on with taking pictures - but they're not photographers.
I think you slightly mis understood my point here - it was more to debunk the notion of using current/prior sales data than to say something like Flickr was ‘the ideal’ solution.
I can’t exactly remember how I worded it but in essence I was looking at trends over the last year or 2. I.e I am agreeing with you re the market trends. People like canon and Nikon and as seen by Sony will be leading the market and not following hence looking at a pool of images over x number of years or todays sales trends (when analysing this pre mirrorless/5 years ago) is irrelevant - but if the proportion of mirrorless images over say the last 2 years has increases by x percent then this is validation of their long term strategy.
R.e beer - I am not going to get into an argument about beer as that is not the purpose of this thread but it does work as a good analogy of what I meant. Specifically your use of the words real ale and craft.
If I recall the wording I used was premium and neither craft or real ale.
Thr point is quite pertinent because premium is neither craft or real ale. The big brewers (and apply this analogy to canon and Nikon and Sony if you like) will not be investing in ‘real ale’ because empirical market evidence suggests that most real ale drinkers will be dead in 20 years and strategy is a long term vision often with similar time horizons of 5-10-15 years and that’s the point about mirrorless. For example the people buying slr lenses and DSLRs today (or x years ago when canon took the desision to switch to mirrorless) are not the canon/Nikon customers of the future - not the indicator of where the market is going to go. When canon took this desision I’d bet that still 70-80% of their sales/‘the market’ was buying DSLRs and slr lenses - hence the current sales of these products was neither the driver of their strategy or what they used to has the strategy on (I.e not basing their strategy on sales data…)
That’s how far these companies will be looking ahead and that’s why looking at sales data is a dud and not necessarily what you make these decisions on.
Craft is great and a growing market segment - brewdog and the like etc who are/were small/medium size and could react to the market quickly and effector arbitrage the market's something a big brewer or neithercanon/Nikon/Sony can do because of development time horizons and anyway in the grand scheme of things volume wise in terms of litres sold is actually so small vs your fosters, your carling, your Stella or peroni that really there is little potential in it for a volume producer to crack that market and that apples here too when you think of SLR. It will become so niche that it’s not worth the costs of supporting it hence the switching off of all those older EF lenses - because the only people buying them are going to be people already invested and with little future potential for volume sales growth. Again a longer term view than ‘just looking at sales data’
Last edited:
- Messages
- 80
- Name
- Russ
- Edit My Images
- No
I tried to embrace the mirrorless system. Did not care for its ergonomics, battery longevity and the EVF. I instead opted for the D780 rig. Love it! And it accepts all of my F-mount glass. And when I take my trip to Peru soon, I can shoot the entire thing on one battery charge.
- Messages
- 80
- Name
- Russ
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, I would never rely on a single battery. The battery charger and a few spares will be nearby. And yes, my D750 will be with me too.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 80
- Name
- Russ
- Edit My Images
- No
Have you handled the D750 or D780? It sounds as if they would be a perfect fit for you. I prefer accessory (battery) grips for the added heft and stability when shooting with heavier glass. They add little to no extra weight, and with the added battery, I can get close to 5000 images without re-charging. Which for me, will take quite a long time.
- Messages
- 45
- Name
- Doug
- Edit My Images
- No
It’s a cliche to bring this up, but some of the most impactful images are Robert Capa’s D-day images where he literally exposed glass sheets whilst under fire.
The tools are just the medium. I don’t know if mirrorless has or hasn’t taken over. I shoot mirrorless everyone I work with shoots mirrorless. But I can imagine there are a tonne of DSLRs out there that are still working because they were built to last, but I wouldn’t be surprised if camera companies start discontinuing support for old lens mounts soon
- Messages
- 23,527
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 80
- Name
- Russ
- Edit My Images
- No
Capa's D-day images were shot on four rolls of film (Super-XX). Not glass plates. The majority of them were lost because of a darkroom/development screw-up. It's a well known story, worthy of looking up.
- Messages
- 23,527
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm sure they'll keep supporting the mounts as long as the lenses at are profitable.
Yes, the tools are just tools in the end. It's good to have stuff that works with you instead of against you because they ARE tools and they have to be used by people.
- Messages
- 23,527
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I CAN shoot it... It is not comfortable though, my hand starts to cramp up (I have large hands, motorcycle glove size is XXXL). So I would not be enjoying it...
My D600 is the first camera I feel comfortable holding, I imagine a D850 would be perfect
I had a D610 before the A7, and would have preferred a deeper grip (and LCD on the top plate).
Actually tried a D3200 when they were current, but it was a horrible, pokey little thing.
Last edited: