Reading mode: Light Dark

vacation with Canon 6D, Sony A7R and Fuji X-T1

Go to last post
Joachim Gerstl

Joachim Gerstl

Veteran Member
Messages
9,722
Solutions
1
Reaction score
6,856
Location
AT
Meh, to each their own.

I agree with your assessment of traveling with big, heavy lenses as I've given that up years ago. You seem enthralled with the Sony offerings which is fine but cameras are about the body and lens and how well they work together hence I'm not a big fan of adaptors to get lenses to work with bodies. For landscape or architecture where you are setting up on a tripod it's one thing but not when you're on the move grabbing shots, switching lenses and trying to travel light. Too much fiddling and compromise for the way I shoot.

I'm not as excited as you about the lens offerings for Sony although I do think the new A7RII is a very interesting camera but then IMO one needs to consider the output. Sure, 42 MP's is great to see detail on screen at 100% but in practical terms how often does one need that for their typical output and how much compromise does one suffer to have that resolution on every shot. Like most things in life it's about compromise and fitting the equipment to your needs. I've got 13x19 (A3+) prints hanging in my office from my 6 MP 10D that people think are from MF because they look so much better than 35mm film every could. Would they be better from the A7RII? Maybe, but IMO it's not worth the compromises the Sony imposes for my type of shooting.

Nice write up though.

Bob

--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
 
Last edited:
Good read.... a couple of things jumped out to me -

1) your ISO chart is a great way to show all of the people that obsess about high ISO that their energy is probably better used elsewhere. I know some people spend a lot more time in the dark but I think there are a lot of people that would have a graph very similar to yours and they're still overly worried about high ISO.

2) Leave the tripod at home next time !?!?! How could you even think such a thing :-) I'd leave even more camera gear at home next time to make room for the tripod. The great thing about the small cameras like the X-T1 and the A7r is that you can get a really light and compact but sturdy travel tripod.
 
rwbaron said:
Meh, to each their own.

I agree with your assessment of traveling with big, heavy lenses as I've given that up years ago. You seem enthralled with the Sony offerings which is fine but cameras are about the body and lens and how well they work together hence I'm not a big fan of adaptors to get lenses to work with bodies. For landscape or architecture where you are setting up on a tripod it's one thing but not when you're on the move grabbing shots, switching lenses and trying to travel light. Too much fiddling and compromise for the way I shoot.

I'm not as excited as you about the lens offerings for Sony although I do think the new A7RII is a very interesting camera but then IMO one needs to consider the output. Sure, 42 MP's is great to see detail on screen at 100% but in practical terms how often does one need that for their typical output and how much compromise does one suffer to have that resolution on every shot. Like most things in life it's about compromise and fitting the equipment to your needs. I've got 13x19 (A3+) prints hanging in my office from my 6 MP 10D that people think are from MF because they look so much better than 35mm film every could. Would they be better from the A7RII? Maybe, but IMO it's not worth the compromises the Sony imposes for my type of shooting.

Nice write up though.

Bob
Click to expand...
 
Clayton1985 said:
rwbaron said:
Meh, to each their own.

I agree with your assessment of traveling with big, heavy lenses as I've given that up years ago. You seem enthralled with the Sony offerings which is fine but cameras are about the body and lens and how well they work together hence I'm not a big fan of adaptors to get lenses to work with bodies. For landscape or architecture where you are setting up on a tripod it's one thing but not when you're on the move grabbing shots, switching lenses and trying to travel light. Too much fiddling and compromise for the way I shoot.

I'm not as excited as you about the lens offerings for Sony although I do think the new A7RII is a very interesting camera but then IMO one needs to consider the output. Sure, 42 MP's is great to see detail on screen at 100% but in practical terms how often does one need that for their typical output and how much compromise does one suffer to have that resolution on every shot. Like most things in life it's about compromise and fitting the equipment to your needs. I've got 13x19 (A3+) prints hanging in my office from my 6 MP 10D that people think are from MF because they look so much better than 35mm film every could. Would they be better from the A7RII? Maybe, but IMO it's not worth the compromises the Sony imposes for my type of shooting.

Nice write up though.

Bob
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Clayton1985 said:
Good read.... a couple of things jumped out to me -

1) your ISO chart is a great way to show all of the people that obsess about high ISO that their energy is probably better used elsewhere. I know some people spend a lot more time in the dark but I think there are a lot of people that would have a graph very similar to yours and they're still overly worried about high ISO.

2) Leave the tripod at home next time !?!?! How could you even think such a thing :-) I'd leave even more camera gear at home next time to make room for the tripod. The great thing about the small cameras like the X-T1 and the A7r is that you can get a really light and compact but sturdy travel tripod.
Click to expand...
I second that re tripods!!!!!
 
This is an interesting read. I can't help but wonder though Joachim, that it was the lens that determined which body you used most commonly rather than selecting the body first. I say this as you report certain lenses were almost bolted to certain bodies ie the 16-35 on the A7R. if you had the equivalent lens on the XT1 would you still have the same body preference?

I do like you blog as I have said previously bit I shall miss reading about fuji. I left Sony and haven't been that tempted to go back. Nothing has changed in that front for me personally. It will be interesting to see how you feel after some time if you completely jump ship. And it will be interesting to see what the forum members think as I often find with amusement nothing raises the ire more of a Fuji user than saying how good Sony is. I will keep readin biglittlecamera but you might gave to call it biglittlecamerawithbiglenses 😀
 
rwbaron said:
Clayton1985 said:
rwbaron said:
Meh, to each their own.

I agree with your assessment of traveling with big, heavy lenses as I've given that up years ago. You seem enthralled with the Sony offerings which is fine but cameras are about the body and lens and how well they work together hence I'm not a big fan of adaptors to get lenses to work with bodies. For landscape or architecture where you are setting up on a tripod it's one thing but not when you're on the move grabbing shots, switching lenses and trying to travel light. Too much fiddling and compromise for the way I shoot.

I'm not as excited as you about the lens offerings for Sony although I do think the new A7RII is a very interesting camera but then IMO one needs to consider the output. Sure, 42 MP's is great to see detail on screen at 100% but in practical terms how often does one need that for their typical output and how much compromise does one suffer to have that resolution on every shot. Like most things in life it's about compromise and fitting the equipment to your needs. I've got 13x19 (A3+) prints hanging in my office from my 6 MP 10D that people think are from MF because they look so much better than 35mm film every could. Would they be better from the A7RII? Maybe, but IMO it's not worth the compromises the Sony imposes for my type of shooting.

Nice write up though.

Bob
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Fully agree with you vajrasattva

I've sold my A7II plus the FE16-35, FE70-200, FE35 & FE55 lenses because I was needing a backpack again, there's no way to put small lenses on FF cameras.
 
Seems you are ready to ditch the Fujis for the Zony system :) I have gone back and forth but the T10 + Zeiss Touits + 18/27/35 are quite compact.
 
Clayton1985 said:
rwbaron said:
Clayton1985 said:
rwbaron said:
Meh, to each their own.

I agree with your assessment of traveling with big, heavy lenses as I've given that up years ago. You seem enthralled with the Sony offerings which is fine but cameras are about the body and lens and how well they work together hence I'm not a big fan of adaptors to get lenses to work with bodies. For landscape or architecture where you are setting up on a tripod it's one thing but not when you're on the move grabbing shots, switching lenses and trying to travel light. Too much fiddling and compromise for the way I shoot.

I'm not as excited as you about the lens offerings for Sony although I do think the new A7RII is a very interesting camera but then IMO one needs to consider the output. Sure, 42 MP's is great to see detail on screen at 100% but in practical terms how often does one need that for their typical output and how much compromise does one suffer to have that resolution on every shot. Like most things in life it's about compromise and fitting the equipment to your needs. I've got 13x19 (A3+) prints hanging in my office from my 6 MP 10D that people think are from MF because they look so much better than 35mm film every could. Would they be better from the A7RII? Maybe, but IMO it's not worth the compromises the Sony imposes for my type of shooting.

Nice write up though.

Bob
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Jose Viegas said:
Fully agree with you vajrasattva

I've sold my A7II plus the FE16-35, FE70-200, FE35 & FE55 lenses because I was needing a backpack again, there's no way to put small lenses on FF cameras.
Click to expand...
I agree which really makes the A7 lineup somewhat strange. Small bodies that (to get the best from them) require large, heavy lenses that do not balance well. If I'm carrying large, heavy FF lenses I'd much prefer a body better suited ergonomically for them but I'd much rather not carry large, heavy lenses.

Bob
 
rwbaron said:
Clayton1985 said:
rwbaron said:
Clayton1985 said:
rwbaron said:
Meh, to each their own.

I agree with your assessment of traveling with big, heavy lenses as I've given that up years ago. You seem enthralled with the Sony offerings which is fine but cameras are about the body and lens and how well they work together hence I'm not a big fan of adaptors to get lenses to work with bodies. For landscape or architecture where you are setting up on a tripod it's one thing but not when you're on the move grabbing shots, switching lenses and trying to travel light. Too much fiddling and compromise for the way I shoot.

I'm not as excited as you about the lens offerings for Sony although I do think the new A7RII is a very interesting camera but then IMO one needs to consider the output. Sure, 42 MP's is great to see detail on screen at 100% but in practical terms how often does one need that for their typical output and how much compromise does one suffer to have that resolution on every shot. Like most things in life it's about compromise and fitting the equipment to your needs. I've got 13x19 (A3+) prints hanging in my office from my 6 MP 10D that people think are from MF because they look so much better than 35mm film every could. Would they be better from the A7RII? Maybe, but IMO it's not worth the compromises the Sony imposes for my type of shooting.

Nice write up though.

Bob
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Clayton1985 said:
rwbaron said:
Clayton1985 said:
rwbaron said:
Clayton1985 said:
rwbaron said:
Meh, to each their own.

I agree with your assessment of traveling with big, heavy lenses as I've given that up years ago. You seem enthralled with the Sony offerings which is fine but cameras are about the body and lens and how well they work together hence I'm not a big fan of adaptors to get lenses to work with bodies. For landscape or architecture where you are setting up on a tripod it's one thing but not when you're on the move grabbing shots, switching lenses and trying to travel light. Too much fiddling and compromise for the way I shoot.

I'm not as excited as you about the lens offerings for Sony although I do think the new A7RII is a very interesting camera but then IMO one needs to consider the output. Sure, 42 MP's is great to see detail on screen at 100% but in practical terms how often does one need that for their typical output and how much compromise does one suffer to have that resolution on every shot. Like most things in life it's about compromise and fitting the equipment to your needs. I've got 13x19 (A3+) prints hanging in my office from my 6 MP 10D that people think are from MF because they look so much better than 35mm film every could. Would they be better from the A7RII? Maybe, but IMO it's not worth the compromises the Sony imposes for my type of shooting.

Nice write up though.

Bob
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
rwbaron said:
Clayton1985 said:
rwbaron said:
Clayton1985 said:
rwbaron said:
Clayton1985 said:
rwbaron said:
Meh, to each their own.

I agree with your assessment of traveling with big, heavy lenses as I've given that up years ago. You seem enthralled with the Sony offerings which is fine but cameras are about the body and lens and how well they work together hence I'm not a big fan of adaptors to get lenses to work with bodies. For landscape or architecture where you are setting up on a tripod it's one thing but not when you're on the move grabbing shots, switching lenses and trying to travel light. Too much fiddling and compromise for the way I shoot.

I'm not as excited as you about the lens offerings for Sony although I do think the new A7RII is a very interesting camera but then IMO one needs to consider the output. Sure, 42 MP's is great to see detail on screen at 100% but in practical terms how often does one need that for their typical output and how much compromise does one suffer to have that resolution on every shot. Like most things in life it's about compromise and fitting the equipment to your needs. I've got 13x19 (A3+) prints hanging in my office from my 6 MP 10D that people think are from MF because they look so much better than 35mm film every could. Would they be better from the A7RII? Maybe, but IMO it's not worth the compromises the Sony imposes for my type of shooting.

Nice write up though.

Bob
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top