duchamp: Battery life of only 350 shots?! Sony, are you serious?
Recently did a ten day trip to Newfoundland with the Sony A7 II, and a bunch of vintage Olympus Zuiko OM lenses, shooting landscapes. Battery life was never a hindrance. I carried 2 extra batteries in my pocket, which by no means slowed me down as much as having to use a tripod would have. It was nice having an effective IS system on all of those 38 year old lenses. Some of the shots were using a 200mm f4 lens handheld, with no motion blur.I prefer to use manual focusing on all of my work, like I have for the last 43 years. The A7II makes MF very easy. Changing a battery is lot easier than reloading the camera with film after 36 frames....I feel spoiled.
Vanitas Photo: I will say it a thousand times: Battery life!
If Sony now has a bigger hand grip in their newer A7 cameras they could have use of one of their higher capacity batteries, but they still decide to use the same battery, as an A7 owner
I would LOVE to see them using something something like the NP-FV70 in their new A7 series cameras.
It is more heavy than the NP FW50? yes but I would gladly trade weight for shooting time.
What it is beyond me is why none of the third party battery grip manufacturers haven't think on this kind of solution pictured in this graphic I just made :D
I wonder how I managed to survive those years having to reload after 36 exposures, which takes much longer than changing a battery. Find something better to gripe about.
There is an AF adapter for Canon.http://www.amazon.com/Auto-Focus-Mount-Adapter-EF-NEX-Canon/dp/B00DW0EV2I
And of course an AF adapter for Sony/Minolta Maxxum lenses.Vast enough?
I will have to assume you don't know what a focus ring is for. You really use AF while your camera is on a tripod, and the mirror locked up?
>"I'll leave the tripod/mirror lock-up discussion aside as you don't understand what they are for."
Presumptuous of you. For that I'll assume you don't know what a camera is for.
"Battery life is significantly shorter on mirrorless because the screen is always on. Take all modern smartphones - they boast great screens but one must charge them at least once a day. On DSLR you can shoot all day long through the (optical) viewfinder on a sole battery only occasionally checking the results."
Oh is THAT why my old DSLR finder has such good battery life! I thought it's magic.
"The reason why I am on DSLR are the vast range of lenses, flashes and other accessories. Sometime mirrorless will also offer such a diversity but not yet."
Vast range of lenses? I can put literally ANY lens on my mirrorless cameras, as long as there's an adapter for it. Whatever lenses your DSLR can use, my mirrorless can. Plus lenses from the old film days. My 38 year old Zuikos work nicely on my Sony A7II.
A good guess why battery life is shorter than other cameras is the IS system, which is the reason I bought the camera. Using a tripod and mirror lock up slows me down, and restricts my movement. It's a feature I would gladly carry extra batteries to have, considering how light Li-ion batteries are. I don't shoot weddings, sports, or news. There are other professional venues besides those, where taking the 30 seconds to change a battery is not a big deal.
Go ahead, hold on to your DSLR and continue to justify it's lingering existence. Some of us have moved on to take advantage of what mirrorless has to offer. Learn to deal with diversity, and be happy there are choices.
"DSLrs are easier to stabilize than mirorrless ones. "
Why is that? So Dslr's have mirror lock-up, why? Is it because of mirror vibration...maybe? And if the mirror lock-up is engaged, you'll have to use a tripod.
"Neveretheless, for shutter speeds longer than 1/15 you'll need a tripod anyway."
Depends on the lens you'll be using. Either way you look at it, you can use a much slower shutter with IS than without.
"But for workflow having 1000 shots per battery is more convenient than changing batteries."
How convenient? About 30 seconds to change a battery? Unless you're a journalist covering non-stop action, I don't see it as a big problem. Good lord, how did photographers survive when they had to reload after 36 shots?
I'd rather carry a couple of extra batteries than needing a tripod for just about every shot because of mirror vibration and lack of IS.
ogl: Nikon with real 36 MP is far better than 40 MP mode from crop 2.
By ogl"I mean that I don't see any advantages of High Resolution mode of m4/3 over real MP."
You might have to take off your Nikon tinted glasses.
The real advantage is having 40mp when it's really important to have, like landscape work, which is normally done with a tripod anyway. And you're getting this capability at a fraction of the cost, size, and weight of a Nikon system. When you're hiking or biking in the wilderness every gram matters.
ImageShoppe: Nice camera but the name is way too long!
Not a problem. I only have to remember it once...when I tell the dealer to hand it over.
stevo23: So underwhelming. Not sure why they bothered with this.
No more underwhelming than your tidbit of commentary.
plastique2: I see a few positive comments about the articulating LCD display. I on the other hand hate that change. Sorry, big partybreaker for me :(PS: Can anyone make a list of advantages of a fully articulating display versus a tilting display - including the frequency of use of each specific advantageous use of one or the other type of display?
1. Try taking a vertical aspect ratio shot at a low angle or overhead angle with a tilting only screen. Frequency of use? almost every time I shoot close-ups.
2. Screen can rotate so that the LCD glass is toward the body, thus protecting it when not in use. Frequency of use? Whenever the camera is not being used.
3. (Maybe not so important) selfies. Frequency of use? for some people....constantly.
FocusBogus: OM-D E-M5 II? How creative again... Why not simply OM-D6?
OK, it is a nice camera with high res mode.
@mg_k"Experts" have been predicting Olympus's demise for the last 20 years. I don't think I'll bother to mark your word.
Sdaniella: resorting to combining multiple exposures, albeit with a half-pixel shift in both X-Y axis ... compensating for shortcomings of its tiny m43 milc 16-mp sensor pixels ...
and restricting it severely to relatively good light ... and restriction to only medium ISOs (1600) ...
Nothing makes a dumb comment dumber like posting it twice.
princecody: Is this a gimmick feature?
Is what a gimmick feature?
PRohmer: I totally regret getting Olympus. I hate everything about this camera except for I.S. Olympus is a shitty company with shitty support. You're gonna tell me this is photographer's camera, so don't expect much of video features? Fujifim x-t1 is a photographer's camera, Em-1 is an angular camera. I only got it because i wanted to keep using my Panasonic lenses, but it was a mistake. I still don't get how this camera got its high ratings. Is it some kind of hipster camera? Who designed it?? It gets caught in my clothes all the time. Evolution in design is there for a reason.
"It gets caught in my clothes all the time."
I've seen cameras panned for silly reasons...but this is the winner.
reginalddwight: I don't own an EM1 but from what I can gather Olympus seemed to have hit a home run with this one.
It looks like video could be improved and the camera could use a nip and tuck.
Overall, a well-deserved selection among the top gear of 2013.
Without the grip, you have the OMD-EM5. And what's so big about the 4:3 lenses?
vesa1tahti: Sensor ratings by DxO: Oly E-M5: 71, Nikon D7000: 80, Nikon D800E: 96. Rely on that. Small sensors- weaker IQ. Micro Four Thirds can't be competitive, sensor size MUST be APS-C or FF. Camera size has no matter, normal people can carry DSLR- cameras, others are too small.
DxO while useful, weigh a lot of their sensor ratings on high ISO performance. Few experienced m43 users expect the same IQ at high ISO situations as they would from a larger sensor. However, at base ISO IQ is very close to the best APS-C sensors. Combined with it's superior IS, the new Olympus' are very useful tools for street photography or similar situations.Personally if I'm shooting grand sweeping landscapes like mountain ranges I'll use FF.Or I can drag out and dust off my 4x5 view camera and really give the pixel peepers something to look at.
marike6: Two things stand out form the RAW files:
* the higher per-pixel sharpness and detail of the D7100 vs the E-M1. * And how biased to red the EM-1 RAWs are.
Of course the reviews are worth reading and studying. How else can someone make an educated decision when purchasing a camera.
It's what the readers that post here have to say about the reviews, like your original comment, that I find tiresome, and useless.
You must have been frothing at the mouth, unable to hold back from posting your opinion that the Nikon D7100 was per pixel sharper.
"DPR uses the exact same RAW workflow for each camera, AFAIK. If they didn't the RAW comparison would be meaningless."
Exactly my point. Each camera demands a different workflow to get the best image.
The Nikon D7100 is a fine camera. So are the Olympus. and so are the Canons, Sonys and so on.
Most important of all is the operator. a person that understands the advantages and limitations of his equipment, and knows how to get the most out of, during the shoot, and in post processing.
This pastime of pitting one camera against the other is a childish game of oneupmanship...something to do after they realize their creative juices have long dried up.
Ya think? Nikon D7100 is a 24 megapixel camera vs. Oly's 16.Considering the Nikon's extra 8 megapixel's it doesn't offer that much more detail.
Also looking at detail quality of RAW files can be skewed, too much depends on the person performing the RAW>JPEG conversion and how detail and sharpness is adjusted.