08-14-2016, 08:35 AM
Arthur Macmillan, you comparing second hand prices of a widely available and slightly outdated system to the exaggerated price you were given.
20 or 24 MP? who cares? The Sony sensor has maybe some advantages in terms of dynamic range and the immanent downsides (low battery life) you already mentioned.
Now, comparing a new body paid as demanded and not second hand, together with a pretty decent but not very versatile 85 mm prime is kind of unfair. The A7II is also available with a 28-70 kit lens for less than 2000 $ new. And if you try, you will find cheaper second hand or grey market offerings. But seeing a camera treated with ductape, would also make me raise an eyebrow or two.
When I said "no experience" I meant no experience with current system bodies + lenses. And since you were not saying things like "always dust on a sensor when changing a lens", I concluded, there were bridge- and point and shoot cameras more involved in your experience.
I can't answer this question fully. I can tell you what a colleague says, who gave all his Nikon DSLRs to his daughter because she is a pro photog and tries to establish herself. He was just fed up with the level of AF accuracy, he said, it's not reliable when shooting birds, sometimes the eyes are not in focus no matter what he calibrates before. Now he is fed up with the battery life of his A7R II (and this is a camera I also don't understand the price point). But he wanted to have a lot of MP because he's printing big.
Additionally he bought himself an A77 II with the concept Klaus already mentioned - the fixed semi transparent mirror which costs a lot of light. I don't know how happy he is, I haven't seen him during my holidays. The body itself was dirt cheap, although new. This will also be the flaw of Nasim's concept - to make the LCD or OLED shine through the pentaprism, he needs to sacrifice some mirror efficiency.
I don't know, if FF is the answer to everything and a D500 is placed as professional camera with advantage to tele-lenses. I also don't know, if these fps above 10/s are so relevant - in some cases 4K video with 60 fps might catch a better moment and is still printable. You can laugh, but for a lot of picture use a screenshot out of a video is decent enough.
When I tried mirrorless system-cameras first, it was a Panasonic Lumix, really cheap µ4/3. I liked some things at it, especially the touchscreen. But it had no EVF and high ISO quality was lower than anything else I had, so I gave it away. How I came to Fuji? Some discussions in this forum made me curious. At that time I spent days with calibrating AF from 10 lenses on 3 different bodies, and it really sucks. I still get out of focus shots, but easy to detect and to explain - the X-E2 has some great qualities, but fast AF tracking in AF-C mode is none of them. However, Fuji updated it's firmware much more often and with much more benefit to us users than I ever saw Nikon doing.
Out of focus on a Fuji is a really fat miss, while out of focus on a Nikon DSLR often tells me, the AF is not reliable, especially in faster bursts. Comparing a D810 against a X-E2 is unfair, too- it's just, that if the picture is in focus on the Fuji, it's is nailed and on Nikon it occasionally happens that the nail is just mm in front of the target.
Enlarging the view and override AF precisely is something, the roughly 6 times more expensive D810 can't do - except in LV, but there I have a bigger lag between release and shutter closing than on any mirrorless.
The question is now: Is it better to integrate both worlds in one body at maybe double price? And leave it to the user to decide which system he should activate? Or use the same money and improve AF and battery life in one body which comes without a mirror?
The battery issue is serious. However, I like the way Fuji is approaching it with the X-T2: Make it chargeable by USB (Sony does this for long time now and you can use the camera while it's charging! Nikon? Canon? Just buy enough batteries....) and add a vertical grip which really gives additional value, not just a look like a Nikon pro with only one extra set of battery and wheels and buttons. But then ask like 400 bucks for that bloody grip...
20 or 24 MP? who cares? The Sony sensor has maybe some advantages in terms of dynamic range and the immanent downsides (low battery life) you already mentioned.
Now, comparing a new body paid as demanded and not second hand, together with a pretty decent but not very versatile 85 mm prime is kind of unfair. The A7II is also available with a 28-70 kit lens for less than 2000 $ new. And if you try, you will find cheaper second hand or grey market offerings. But seeing a camera treated with ductape, would also make me raise an eyebrow or two.
When I said "no experience" I meant no experience with current system bodies + lenses. And since you were not saying things like "always dust on a sensor when changing a lens", I concluded, there were bridge- and point and shoot cameras more involved in your experience.
Quote:My question remains what makes these MILCs so appealing that people go out and spend enough on the body alone that I could put together a decent system for? I know there is something.
I can't answer this question fully. I can tell you what a colleague says, who gave all his Nikon DSLRs to his daughter because she is a pro photog and tries to establish herself. He was just fed up with the level of AF accuracy, he said, it's not reliable when shooting birds, sometimes the eyes are not in focus no matter what he calibrates before. Now he is fed up with the battery life of his A7R II (and this is a camera I also don't understand the price point). But he wanted to have a lot of MP because he's printing big.
Additionally he bought himself an A77 II with the concept Klaus already mentioned - the fixed semi transparent mirror which costs a lot of light. I don't know how happy he is, I haven't seen him during my holidays. The body itself was dirt cheap, although new. This will also be the flaw of Nasim's concept - to make the LCD or OLED shine through the pentaprism, he needs to sacrifice some mirror efficiency.
I don't know, if FF is the answer to everything and a D500 is placed as professional camera with advantage to tele-lenses. I also don't know, if these fps above 10/s are so relevant - in some cases 4K video with 60 fps might catch a better moment and is still printable. You can laugh, but for a lot of picture use a screenshot out of a video is decent enough.
When I tried mirrorless system-cameras first, it was a Panasonic Lumix, really cheap µ4/3. I liked some things at it, especially the touchscreen. But it had no EVF and high ISO quality was lower than anything else I had, so I gave it away. How I came to Fuji? Some discussions in this forum made me curious. At that time I spent days with calibrating AF from 10 lenses on 3 different bodies, and it really sucks. I still get out of focus shots, but easy to detect and to explain - the X-E2 has some great qualities, but fast AF tracking in AF-C mode is none of them. However, Fuji updated it's firmware much more often and with much more benefit to us users than I ever saw Nikon doing.
Out of focus on a Fuji is a really fat miss, while out of focus on a Nikon DSLR often tells me, the AF is not reliable, especially in faster bursts. Comparing a D810 against a X-E2 is unfair, too- it's just, that if the picture is in focus on the Fuji, it's is nailed and on Nikon it occasionally happens that the nail is just mm in front of the target.
Enlarging the view and override AF precisely is something, the roughly 6 times more expensive D810 can't do - except in LV, but there I have a bigger lag between release and shutter closing than on any mirrorless.
The question is now: Is it better to integrate both worlds in one body at maybe double price? And leave it to the user to decide which system he should activate? Or use the same money and improve AF and battery life in one body which comes without a mirror?
The battery issue is serious. However, I like the way Fuji is approaching it with the X-T2: Make it chargeable by USB (Sony does this for long time now and you can use the camera while it's charging! Nikon? Canon? Just buy enough batteries....) and add a vertical grip which really gives additional value, not just a look like a Nikon pro with only one extra set of battery and wheels and buttons. But then ask like 400 bucks for that bloody grip...