dcstep
Veteran Member
Birds and wildlife are on his wish list. Hence, given his listed options, he'll want the one with the better AF system and higher keeper rate.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
First FF: Sony A7III or Nikon D780
- Thread starter nibedk
- Start date
tbcass
Veteran Member
The best DSLRs had AF that is highly competitive with the best mirrorless cameras. The primary advantage of Mirrorless is that it will track subjects over the whole sensor rather than restricted to a central portion. It just takes a bit more skill with DSLRs to keep the subject within that portion but if you use that skill your keeper rate will be competitive.
Setting new standards: Nikon D5 Review: Digital Photography Review
--
Tom
Last edited:
Bob Janes
Veteran Member
Well..
I'm a big advocate of mirrorless. I'm fine with an EVF and I like using legacy manual focus lenses.
However, a good optical viewfinder is a joy forever...
I guess it comes down to whether the SLR does everything you want from it and what infrastructure (lenses etc) you have access to. Once you are beyond that (and assuming there are no personal quirks you are willing to take a financial hit for), I guess it should just come down to price.
The DSLR is just as capable a camera now as it was 10 years ago when it was regarded (by many) as 'king'.
I agree you can't beat an optical VF. I'm finding the EVF to be a right pain. Worst thing on mirrorless cameras. Like watching poor quality video. Even worse in low light.
As for exposure it not set up for RAW. The difference between RAW and JPEG's is considerable on Sony.
According to 1 pro who used both A7lll and the D780, for a number of years, the A7lll is no better for AF.
Apparently the a7iii, doesn't have real-time tracking like the later models.
Last edited:
dcstep
Veteran Member
I have to wonder where you guys had trouble with EVFs in a prior life. The EVFs on my a1II and a9III are astounding and wonderful. BTW, I have tons of experience with OVFs, going back to my first serious camera, a TLR, followed by excellent SLRs and DSLRs, until I purchased my first Sony in 2018, an a9.
The a9's EVF allowed me to see, for the first time, what the recording media was seeing. WYSIWYG can't be beat! There's no excuse for getting the exposure wrong, particularly with Zebras set to show blown out RAW highlights.
I know that the OP is long gone, but MF lenses just don't work for BIF and wild animals on the run, which is one of my main interests, and an expressed interest of the OP. I remember MF well, and it just CANNOT compete with modern AF when it comes to getting an eagle's eye tack sharp as it flies directly at the camera. MF is fine for landscape, but throw a human in there
We are talking about the A7iii here, the EVF is said to be not very good, one review said the A7Riii is much better, that is what l'm using. It is not as good as an optical VF. The newer cameras are said to be better.
tbcass
Veteran Member
I think some people are stuck with what they like and don't want to change. I used SLRs/DSLRs for 45 years before I went 100% EVF. I can photograph just as well either so for me it makes no difference.
tbcass
Veteran Member
The A7III EVF is good, just not the best. I have success using ones that are worse.
--
Tom
Last edited:
dcstep
Veteran Member
Given your experience, I assume that you shoot in manual mode. As you can, I can shoot with an OVF very well, but much prefer seeing the exposure value in the EVF and I NEVER get it wrong because I grabbed the camera in a hurry, but forgot that I'd pumped up the iSO after sunset the night before. Maybe we can shoot old school, but don't you agree than a modern EVF is preferable to OVF for most applications.
A DPR editorial view on that question
- better battery life
- solid second hand market
Beyond that:
The EVF vs. OVF debate dates back more than a decade to the likes of the a55 with a mediocre EVF, which I used in parallel to the a900 featuring one of the best OVFs ever made for 24*36 (full)-format (D)SLRs. And why did I just love the a55? Its fold out LCD benefitting from life view (as the lousy EVF) was a work-around for taking pics while motorbiking - no more need to take the helmet off when stopping for a quick shot opportunity spotted along the way. Think of trying to peak thru the a900 OVF to frame a shot in portrait framing with a helmet on and an OVF-only camera body: No go.
So another travel-related plus for EVF/LCD life view cams at large...
Given the rather dated OP and the outdated debates on EVF vs. OVF, DSLR vs. mirrorless, the above concludes my 2 cents in this thread.
Cheers,
Ralf
tbcass
Veteran Member
I shot in manual mode for most of my SLR years.
I rarely depend on WYSIWYG view in the viewfinder. I shoot RAW only and that feature works best with JPEGs.
tbcass
Veteran Member
It's funny you mention the A55. At the time that camera had the best EVF ever and was considered a revelation. Before that EVFs were horrendous by comparison. Those pre A55 EVFs were so bad you could actually see the individual pixels.
From the DPR review of the A55;
"The A55's EVF is bright and large - significantly brighter and larger in fact than Sony's A550. It also compares very well against the EVF of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 (arguably its closest competitor in this respect). The only serious complaint that we have is that the rainbow 'tearing' which is a characteristic of field-sequential displays is more noticeable (and therefore more of a problem) when using the A55 than the G2."
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum