Contituation of the Versatility thread

Started Apr 5, 2013 | Discussions
MOD Biggs23 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,455
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
2

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Let us look at the definition you quoted: “Turning with ease from one thing to another”

My idea of that camera: Sony NEX-6 or similar. But let us look into it closer. Sony NEX-6, in addition to native lenses, just about any lens out there can be used if it will cover at least an APS-C sensor. To me, that is pretty close to having a “universal mount”: Versatility.

So you have to carry multiple adapters for all those different lenses in differing lens mount, right? That makes your camera carrying requirement much larger and with many more pieces. That severely hurts your argument.

Nope. Obviously, you didn't understand the rest of my post (or never bothered to read it before responding). Just to help you get the point, multiple adapter is akin to mutliple lenses. I may use one adapter for a variety of lenses, or leave an adapter each on the lens. But, ultimately, I pick based on how I want to use my camera.

I read and understood. You said you could use an adapter to use lenses of different mounts. But each different mount requires a different adapter. Thus, if you want to use multiple lenses all of a different mount you must carry an adapter for each. Or am I wrong? Is there a magical adapter that allows the use of every other mount all at the same time?

Most of these non-native lenses will necessitate manual focus, which is actually a strength of the system. You have Focus Peaking, Focus Magnify, Tiltable LCD screen and EVF. The camera will meter: Versatility.

Let me get this straight, MF is a STRENGTH?

You bet. Practically 100% of my photography is with manual focus, except on some occasions when I might use AF. I think I posted images from NBA game taken with AF and MF in the other thread(s).

100% of YOUR photography may very well be. But arguing that MF is MORE versatile and a STRENGTH for most users is hogwash.

You realize that you can MF with a dSLR too, right? I recognize that focus peaking is a big thing but it's certainly NOT more versatile to MF, even with focus peaking.

I wouldn't buy a DSLR today, much less for Manual Focus.

I wouldn't buy a mirrorless today, much less for AF. What's that comment have anything to do with the topic at hand?

Some of the non-native mounts also allow for Auto Focus. It is for this reason, effort is being put in developing such adapters as we’ve recently seen from Metabones (with, or without AF). Then there is another tool that not only allows expansion of options for AF lenses, it literally transforms the AF system, from Minolta/Sony A-mount. Sports/Action photography, covered well: Versatility.

But not as well as a dSLR. So versatile, yes, but less so.

There are several points in the argument you responded to. Which one are you alluding to? Definitely not non-native mounts with AF, or is it? Heck, many DSLRs don't even support AF with their own mount depending on sensor size. Or, won't even meter properly.

All FF cameras that I know of will AF with any native lens that isn't a dedicated MF. I was responding to the concept of AF in general, which same generation FF dSLR's are better at than mirrorless cameras are.

As for Sport/Action photography, I enjoy that aspect of photography and I'm not the one complaining. You don't, but you're complaining.

I'm not complaining about anything. I think you're confusing complaining with discussing.

Heading to the park for a walk? To a family dinner without lugging a bag or a camera hanging on the neck? Put 20mm f/2.8 pancake on NEX-6, you are covered (weight: 415g, < 1 lb. Size: pocketable). Street shooting? Put the relatively small 35mm f/1.8 (weight: 500g, just over 1 lb. Size: acceptable). A companion to bike through the mountains? Even the ultra-wide zoom (10-18 f/4) is tiny and light (225g). Want 10mm to 35mm versatility? You’re looking at net weight of the system (10-18, 20mm and 35mm lenses, plus body) at 795g… less than the body-only weight of a Full Frame DSLR. And in fact, the system itself is modular, that a person can choose to put a lens each in two pockets and skip the bag, to take advantage of: Versatility.

I can do all of those things easily with a dSLR, too. Is it larger? Sure. Is is heavier? Yep. Is the quality better and are there more lens options and is the quality better and is shooting easier and... all yes as well.

Actually, size, cost, weight are the key points made above. If you ignore all that... I rest my case. As for lens choices, virtually any lens you can put on your DSLR, I can use on my NEX. Can the opposite be done?

I've long admitted that mirrorless cameras do have some advantages. It's just that those advantages are incredibly overshadowed by the disadvantages. As for putting any lens on, what lens am I lacking in a native mount for FF? The only reason that NEX (or similar) needs to put on other lenses is because not enough lenses have been developed for the native mount.

Want to shoot sports or birds in flight? Get a Sony/Minolta A-mount lens of your choice (FF or APS-C), put LA-EA2 adapter, and you’ve got a system that can focus continuously (even while shooting at 10 FPS). And yes, you can use either the EVF OR the LCD without losing performance, per need: Versatility.

Yep, versatile. But still not as versatile as a FF setup. I don't need an adapter and I can focus MORE accurately and continuously at 10FPS too.

I do need an adapter with NEX, to add to its functionality. If I don't need super fast PDAF, I can leave the adapter home, and enjoy the beauty of a small camera. That is versatility.

Sure.

Now, can you back up yuor claim about focusing more accurately and continuously at 10 fps with the gear you have?

What do I need to back up? I can do it with the gear I own. What details are needed?

That you can literally leave in your pockets when going for a casual walk?

When did I say that, exactly? You have a terrible habit of implying or outright stating that I said things I did not.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D5 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +5 more
MOD Biggs23 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,455
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
2

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

All FF cameras of the same generation as the mirrorless cameras you're speaking of are better at focusing in low light, IME. Older FF cameras are a different story, sure.

I have a 9+ year old camera that can focus in complete darkness.

To be pedantic, no it can't, but I understand your point.

Well, it can. That is the point of "Night Framing" option (Focuses in complete darkness for framing, but takes image in normal mode albeit requires flash).

COMPLETE darkness means that NO light is available. Literally, none. That's what the word means. If there is NO light than NOTHING can focus, not even your eyes. So no, it cannot focus in COMPLETE darkness.

Nonetheless, compare your NEX with a good FF dSLR of the same generation and the FF will focus more accurately and more consistently in low light. (-1EV or worse)

Let us hope so. If you're paying 3x as much, you better expect it. However, what if I choose to focus in even darker surroundings? What will be your option?

I can focus below -1EV, I was just using it as a baseline for comparison. I've successfully autofocused in about -4EV.

I'd have to disagree. High ISO images from same generation FF dSLRs tend to be better than their mirrorless counterparts.

So, it is lack of mirror that is causing trouble at high ISO? I wonder if that applies to Sony RX1.

Nope, it's sensor size and the technology camera makers have used.

But RX1 is mirror-less.

I understand that. Not sure of your point.

What does a 5D MKIII or D800 cost. I said price range.

Price range isn't related to versatility.

Price is related to purchase decision to have versatility. With unlimited budget, I wouldn't care about versatility out of a single camera body.

Right, but that's an important distinction. We're not discussing the choice of versatility, we're discussing versatility itself.

If price  can be ignored, there is no need to worry about a single multi-dimensional system.

The original question was about the most versatile system overall. Singular. As such, my arguments have related to options within that confine.

I've done this. I'm generally far more baffled by smaller cameras than larger ones. For me P&S cameras tend to be the most difficult by far. Than bridge cameras, then mirrorless, then dSLR.

The super control panel on my E-PL5 is so intuitive. Everything is right there. It only takes a second to change most commonly used functions.

The same can be said of good dSLR's, and more.

Nope.

Yep.

Nope.

Yep.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D5 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +5 more
FoolyCooly Veteran Member • Posts: 3,484
Cost and Camera Size are related to Versatility
3

The best camera is the one you have.

A $4000 camera isn't coming to the beach with me and my family. There is no way I'm going to walk away from my beachbag filled with $5000 worth of camera gear as I swim with my kids.

Regarding size of the gear- My DSLRs almost never come with me on family outings because the stroller I am pushing and the diaper bag I'm carrying is already too much. Any small camera including my phone is more versatile in this situation.

MOD Biggs23 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,455
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
2

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

I don't shoot sports, correct. I do, however, shoot plenty of low light 'action', such as people moving and dancing in low light. Sometimes even extreme low light. So I'm extremely equipped to understand versatility in that area, even if not for sports specifically.

Show me one image that you believe I cannot take with a NEX. And also tell me why you believe I couldn't.

I posted an example in a previous thread. It was f/2.8, 1/60th, ISO 104,000 I believe. Any questions?

EVF cameras are crippled in quite a few ways. If you're a regular user of them you're certainly aware of that. They do have some advantages though.

Their advantages are the reason I don't care for OVFs anymore. In fact, that brings to another fact: EVFs add to versatility.

Which is well and good for you, but largely irrelevant to the topic at hand. EVF's have advantages as I've admitted. However, they also have drawbacks.

It's not always practical, no one is arguing that. It's more versatile overall, though.

You went for the overhype.

Nope, I went for the versatile.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D5 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +5 more
OP vzlnc Regular Member • Posts: 314
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
4

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Let us look at the definition you quoted: “Turning with ease from one thing to another”

My idea of that camera: Sony NEX-6 or similar. But let us look into it closer. Sony NEX-6, in addition to native lenses, just about any lens out there can be used if it will cover at least an APS-C sensor. To me, that is pretty close to having a “universal mount”: Versatility.

So you have to carry multiple adapters for all those different lenses in differing lens mount, right? That makes your camera carrying requirement much larger and with many more pieces. That severely hurts your argument.

Nope. Obviously, you didn't understand the rest of my post (or never bothered to read it before responding). Just to help you get the point, multiple adapter is akin to mutliple lenses. I may use one adapter for a variety of lenses, or leave an adapter each on the lens. But, ultimately, I pick based on how I want to use my camera.

Most of these non-native lenses will necessitate manual focus, which is actually a strength of the system. You have Focus Peaking, Focus Magnify, Tiltable LCD screen and EVF. The camera will meter: Versatility.

Let me get this straight, MF is a STRENGTH?

You bet. Practically 100% of my photography is with manual focus, except on some occasions when I might use AF. I think I posted images from NBA game taken with AF and MF in the other thread(s).

You realize that you can MF with a dSLR too, right? I recognize that focus peaking is a big thing but it's certainly NOT more versatile to MF, even with focus peaking.

I wouldn't buy a DSLR today, much less for Manual Focus.

Some of the non-native mounts also allow for Auto Focus. It is for this reason, effort is being put in developing such adapters as we’ve recently seen from Metabones (with, or without AF). Then there is another tool that not only allows expansion of options for AF lenses, it literally transforms the AF system, from Minolta/Sony A-mount. Sports/Action photography, covered well: Versatility.

But not as well as a dSLR. So versatile, yes, but less so.

There are several points in the argument you responded to. Which one are you alluding to? Definitely not non-native mounts with AF, or is it? Heck, many DSLRs don't even support AF with their own mount depending on sensor size. Or, won't even meter properly.

As for Sport/Action photography, I enjoy that aspect of photography and I'm not the one complaining. You don't, but you're complaining.

Heading to the park for a walk? To a family dinner without lugging a bag or a camera hanging on the neck? Put 20mm f/2.8 pancake on NEX-6, you are covered (weight: 415g, < 1 lb. Size: pocketable). Street shooting? Put the relatively small 35mm f/1.8 (weight: 500g, just over 1 lb. Size: acceptable). A companion to bike through the mountains? Even the ultra-wide zoom (10-18 f/4) is tiny and light (225g). Want 10mm to 35mm versatility? You’re looking at net weight of the system (10-18, 20mm and 35mm lenses, plus body) at 795g… less than the body-only weight of a Full Frame DSLR. And in fact, the system itself is modular, that a person can choose to put a lens each in two pockets and skip the bag, to take advantage of: Versatility.

I can do all of those things easily with a dSLR, too. Is it larger? Sure. Is is heavier? Yep. Is the quality better and are there more lens options and is the quality better and is shooting easier and... all yes as well.

Actually, size, cost, weight are the key points made above. If you ignore all that... I rest my case. As for lens choices, virtually any lens you can put on your DSLR, I can use on my NEX. Can the opposite be done?

FF already offers almost all focal lengths and both variable aperture and fixed aperture lenses at those focal lengths. Why would FF users even bother with putting lenses designed for other systems. Its the other systems which DO NOT have as good coverage as the FF cameras that have to resort to adapting lenses from other similar systems. Nikon and Canon both have wide-angle, normal zoom, portrait and wide primes, telephotos at f2.8 and f4 which other systems DONT even come close to having. Yes, you can adapt, and there goes the weight and size argument out of the window. For normal primes Canikon have the option of f1.2, f1.4, f1.8 for every individual requirement. THAT IS CALLED VERSATILITY.

Adapting these lenses to other systems means those systems are depending on FF lenses to overcome their weaknesses or lacking of certain features. You never see FF users trying to adapt lenses from other systems, bcoz they already have all accessories, lenses etc they need.

MOD Biggs23 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,455
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
2

FoolyCooly wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

FoolyCooly wrote:

Yes, the 5D classic, 5D MK II and 6D. Not all FF cameras are good at focusing in low-light. The peripheral points on all the cameras I listed above are rated at f5.6 for example.

All FF cameras of the same generation as the mirrorless cameras you're speaking of are better at focusing in low light, IME. Older FF cameras are a different story, sure.

The 6D is new.

Yes, it is. You used that as a comparison, not me.

I'd have to disagree. High ISO images from same generation FF dSLRs tend to be better than their mirrorless counterparts.

What does a 5D MKIII or D800 cost. I said price range.

Price range isn't related to versatility.

A $4000 camera better offer better performance than a $1000 camera.

Agreed!

5) Not good enough flash system.

What? Olympus RC flash Google it.

A decent system it seems but still not compatible with many O/C flash systems that allow for HSS, such as RadioPoppers for instance.

Home many people really use those?

Every photographer I talk with in person on a regular basis does. I use RP's multiple times every week.

I've never used them and I don't know anyone who does. I've used PWs and cheap dumb wireless flash controllers but I have little need for high speed flash sync. I suppose I could use a 20' TTL cord if I really needed it.

Ok, so? Just because you do not know those people or use them yourself doesn't mean they don't exist. A modern FF dSLR is compatible with them, a mirrorless isn't. Thus the FF is the more versatile option. That's all I'm saying.

6) Thin DOF not possible in situations when you need it.

When do you need it? I need thin DOF for portraits and have no trouble getting it my FX, DX or MFT.

Fair enough, but FF will always have more options in terms of DoF than a smaller format will. As such, it's more versatile in that arena.

Agreed but I will argue that DX and FX can be good enough.

?

Sorry, DX and MFT.

Good enough for what, exactly? All I'm saying is FF provides more DoF options and is therefore more versatile, which is the point of this and the other threads. Nothing more.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D5 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +5 more
MOD Biggs23 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,455
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
1

vzlnc wrote:

FF already offers almost all focal lengths and both variable aperture and fixed aperture lenses at those focal lengths. Why would FF users even bother with putting lenses designed for other systems. Its the other systems which DO NOT have as good coverage as the FF cameras that have to resort to adapting lenses from other similar systems. Nikon and Canon both have wide-angle, normal zoom, portrait and wide primes, telephotos at f2.8 and f4 which other systems DONT even come close to having. Yes, you can adapt, and there goes the weight and size argument out of the window. For normal primes Canikon have the option of f1.2, f1.4, f1.8 for every individual requirement. THAT IS CALLED VERSATILITY.

Adapting these lenses to other systems means those systems are depending on FF lenses to overcome their weaknesses or lacking of certain features. You never see FF users trying to adapt lenses from other systems, bcoz they already have all accessories, lenses etc they need.

Exactly!

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D5 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +5 more
FoolyCooly Veteran Member • Posts: 3,484
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
1

Biggs23 wrote:

vzlnc wrote:

FF already offers almost all focal lengths and both variable aperture and fixed aperture lenses at those focal lengths. Why would FF users even bother with putting lenses designed for other systems. Its the other systems which DO NOT have as good coverage as the FF cameras that have to resort to adapting lenses from other similar systems. Nikon and Canon both have wide-angle, normal zoom, portrait and wide primes, telephotos at f2.8 and f4 which other systems DONT even come close to having. Yes, you can adapt, and there goes the weight and size argument out of the window. For normal primes Canikon have the option of f1.2, f1.4, f1.8 for every individual requirement. THAT IS CALLED VERSATILITY.

Adapting these lenses to other systems means those systems are depending on FF lenses to overcome their weaknesses or lacking of certain features. You never see FF users trying to adapt lenses from other systems, bcoz they already have all accessories, lenses etc they need.

Exactly!

IDK, I'm quite happy using my Nikon glass on my Olympus body. Plus, there are some pretty cool MFT lenses that are worth looking at.

SLR Magic 50mm Hyperprime f0.95

Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm f0.95

Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f0.95

Tiny Samyang 7.5mm Fisheye

M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm f1.8

M.Zuiko Digital ED 20mm f2

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm f2.5

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

FoolyCooly Veteran Member • Posts: 3,484
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread

Biggs23 wrote:

Sorry, DX and MFT.

Good enough for what, exactly? All I'm saying is FF provides more DoF options and is therefore more versatile, which is the point of this and the other threads. Nothing more.

Good enough for everything.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
1

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Let us look at the definition you quoted: “Turning with ease from one thing to another”

My idea of that camera: Sony NEX-6 or similar. But let us look into it closer. Sony NEX-6, in addition to native lenses, just about any lens out there can be used if it will cover at least an APS-C sensor. To me, that is pretty close to having a “universal mount”: Versatility.

So you have to carry multiple adapters for all those different lenses in differing lens mount, right? That makes your camera carrying requirement much larger and with many more pieces. That severely hurts your argument.

Nope. Obviously, you didn't understand the rest of my post (or never bothered to read it before responding). Just to help you get the point, multiple adapter is akin to mutliple lenses. I may use one adapter for a variety of lenses, or leave an adapter each on the lens. But, ultimately, I pick based on how I want to use my camera.

I read and understood. You said you could use an adapter to use lenses of different mounts. But each different mount requires a different adapter. Thus, if you want to use multiple lenses all of a different mount you must carry an adapter for each. Or am I wrong? Is there a magical adapter that allows the use of every other mount all at the same time?

Versatility lets you pick. You can choose to leave an adapter on every lens, or just use one adapter depending on your lens collection.

Most of these non-native lenses will necessitate manual focus, which is actually a strength of the system. You have Focus Peaking, Focus Magnify, Tiltable LCD screen and EVF. The camera will meter: Versatility.

Let me get this straight, MF is a STRENGTH?

You bet. Practically 100% of my photography is with manual focus, except on some occasions when I might use AF. I think I posted images from NBA game taken with AF and MF in the other thread(s).

100% of YOUR photography may very well be. But arguing that MF is MORE versatile and a STRENGTH for most users is hogwash.

I didn't say MF is more versatile. I said, manual focusing is a strength of NEX cameras, which adds to the value. I certainly don't think a versatile system will limit your options, rather afford ways to expand it. In fact, I picked up a NEX primarily to enjoy manual photography, and discovering along the way the versatility that make them replacement for DSLR/DSLT bodies.

You realize that you can MF with a dSLR too, right? I recognize that focus peaking is a big thing but it's certainly NOT more versatile to MF, even with focus peaking.

I wouldn't buy a DSLR today, much less for Manual Focus.

I wouldn't buy a mirrorless today, much less for AF. What's that comment have anything to do with the topic at hand?

In fact you shouldn't buy a mirror-less camera if you must rely on AF at all times. Only if you prefer to expand the camera usage beyond a limited set of options, that you may want to consider it, as I did (and only to discover later that the AF aspect isn't missing either).

Some of the non-native mounts also allow for Auto Focus. It is for this reason, effort is being put in developing such adapters as we’ve recently seen from Metabones (with, or without AF). Then there is another tool that not only allows expansion of options for AF lenses, it literally transforms the AF system, from Minolta/Sony A-mount. Sports/Action photography, covered well: Versatility.

But not as well as a dSLR. So versatile, yes, but less so.

There are several points in the argument you responded to. Which one are you alluding to? Definitely not non-native mounts with AF, or is it? Heck, many DSLRs don't even support AF with their own mount depending on sensor size. Or, won't even meter properly.

All FF cameras that I know of will AF with any native lens that isn't a dedicated MF. I was responding to the concept of AF in general, which same generation FF dSLR's are better at than mirrorless cameras are.

If your option is limited to AF, then you have no choice. You're not looking for versatility, you're looking for something that meets your shorter list of must haves.

As for Sport/Action photography, I enjoy that aspect of photography and I'm not the one complaining. You don't, but you're complaining.

I'm not complaining about anything. I think you're confusing complaining with discussing.

You're complaining that I couldn't take a NEX and shoot sports with it. Or, are you agreeing that I could?

Heading to the park for a walk? To a family dinner without lugging a bag or a camera hanging on the neck? Put 20mm f/2.8 pancake on NEX-6, you are covered (weight: 415g, < 1 lb. Size: pocketable). Street shooting? Put the relatively small 35mm f/1.8 (weight: 500g, just over 1 lb. Size: acceptable). A companion to bike through the mountains? Even the ultra-wide zoom (10-18 f/4) is tiny and light (225g). Want 10mm to 35mm versatility? You’re looking at net weight of the system (10-18, 20mm and 35mm lenses, plus body) at 795g… less than the body-only weight of a Full Frame DSLR. And in fact, the system itself is modular, that a person can choose to put a lens each in two pockets and skip the bag, to take advantage of: Versatility.

I can do all of those things easily with a dSLR, too. Is it larger? Sure. Is is heavier? Yep. Is the quality better and are there more lens options and is the quality better and is shooting easier and... all yes as well.

Actually, size, cost, weight are the key points made above. If you ignore all that... I rest my case. As for lens choices, virtually any lens you can put on your DSLR, I can use on my NEX. Can the opposite be done?

I've long admitted that mirrorless cameras do have some advantages. It's just that those advantages are incredibly overshadowed by the disadvantages.

Not for my money.

As for putting any lens on, what lens am I lacking in a native mount for FF?

Re-read my point.

The only reason that NEX (or similar) needs to put on other lenses is because not enough lenses have been developed for the native mount.

Not necessarily. Many people buy NEX because they are able to use their old and new lenses from other systems. Also because one can find impressive values from the past, and have explore their photography skills with it. These mirror-less systems are fantastic tools towards that effect. I am one of these people.

Here is the other side. I like options. For example, I could have picked Samyang 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye lens for A-mount and used on NEX without an issue. I picked the 8mm f/2.8 Fisheye for E-mount (smaller and lighter).

I could have picked Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS for E-mount. I use Sony 35mm f/1.8 for A-mount instead. I could pick Tamron or Sony 18-200 OSS E-mount for travel zoom. I plan on using Sigma 18-250 OS A-mount instead.

In other words, I can pick and choose without much regard to mount itself, but what makes the most sense to me, with multiple options.

Want to shoot sports or birds in flight? Get a Sony/Minolta A-mount lens of your choice (FF or APS-C), put LA-EA2 adapter, and you’ve got a system that can focus continuously (even while shooting at 10 FPS). And yes, you can use either the EVF OR the LCD without losing performance, per need: Versatility.

Yep, versatile. But still not as versatile as a FF setup. I don't need an adapter and I can focus MORE accurately and continuously at 10FPS too.

I do need an adapter with NEX, to add to its functionality. If I don't need super fast PDAF, I can leave the adapter home, and enjoy the beauty of a small camera. That is versatility.

Sure.

Now, can you back up yuor claim about focusing more accurately and continuously at 10 fps with the gear you have?

What do I need to back up? I can do it with the gear I own. What details are needed?

Why kind of "details" are expected in a photography forum?

That you can literally leave in your pockets when going for a casual walk?

When did I say that, exactly? You have a terrible habit of implying or outright stating that I said things I did not.

I didn't say you did, but that is the point you'd made an attempt to address.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
olliess Senior Member • Posts: 1,349
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
2

FoolyCooly wrote:

olliess wrote:

The OM-D is exceptional for its slightly smaller sensor size, but it doesn't quite match (for example) the same-generation NEX-6 and D7000, which at $900 are both cheaper than the OM-D at $1000. (Not to mention entry-level DSLRs like the D3200, which are at a much lower price point).

My E-PL5 shares the same sensor as the OM-D. I paid $400 for it new but retail street price is $550-$600.

... DSLRs in the $1000 price range have pentraprism OVFs, usually with 100% coverage.

What about the $600 price range?

For $600 you can get a DSLR with a cramped OVF or an E-PL5 with no viewfinder at all.

EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

All FF cameras of the same generation as the mirrorless cameras you're speaking of are better at focusing in low light, IME. Older FF cameras are a different story, sure.

I have a 9+ year old camera that can focus in complete darkness.

To be pedantic, no it can't, but I understand your point.

Well, it can. That is the point of "Night Framing" option (Focuses in complete darkness for framing, but takes image in normal mode albeit requires flash).

COMPLETE darkness means that NO light is available. Literally, none. That's what the word means. If there is NO light than NOTHING can focus, not even your eyes. So no, it cannot focus in COMPLETE darkness.

Infra Red. Darkness to my eyes, not to the camera. Now you know? The camera is capable of "seeing" in IR light and acquire focus, even if our eyes can't.

Nonetheless, compare your NEX with a good FF dSLR of the same generation and the FF will focus more accurately and more consistently in low light. (-1EV or worse)

Let us hope so. If you're paying 3x as much, you better expect it. However, what if I choose to focus in even darker surroundings? What will be your option?

I can focus below -1EV, I was just using it as a baseline for comparison. I've successfully autofocused in about -4EV.

Let us try even darker. Who is more likely to miss focus, you or I? (Trick question)

I'd have to disagree. High ISO images from same generation FF dSLRs tend to be better than their mirrorless counterparts.

So, it is lack of mirror that is causing trouble at high ISO? I wonder if that applies to Sony RX1.

Nope, it's sensor size and the technology camera makers have used.

But RX1 is mirror-less.

I understand that. Not sure of your point.

You've been harping about FF DSLRs versus "mirror-less". Perhaps you should be more specific that you don't want to include FF mirror-less systems.

What does a 5D MKIII or D800 cost. I said price range.

Price range isn't related to versatility.

Price is related to purchase decision to have versatility. With unlimited budget, I wouldn't care about versatility out of a single camera body.

Right, but that's an important distinction. We're not discussing the choice of versatility, we're discussing versatility itself.

If price  can be ignored, there is no need to worry about a single multi-dimensional system.

The original question was about the most versatile system overall. Singular. As such, my arguments have related to options within that confine.

And cost plays a role, from design and delivery to buying.

I've done this. I'm generally far more baffled by smaller cameras than larger ones. For me P&S cameras tend to be the most difficult by far. Than bridge cameras, then mirrorless, then dSLR.

The super control panel on my E-PL5 is so intuitive. Everything is right there. It only takes a second to change most commonly used functions.

The same can be said of good dSLR's, and more.

Nope.

Yep.

Nope.

Yep.

I wish to be amused watching you keep up.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
MOD Biggs23 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,455
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
2

FoolyCooly wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Sorry, DX and MFT.

Good enough for what, exactly? All I'm saying is FF provides more DoF options and is therefore more versatile, which is the point of this and the other threads. Nothing more.

Good enough for everything.

Ah. Well I'd have to strenuously disagree with that!

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D5 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +5 more
EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread

vzlnc wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Let us look at the definition you quoted: “Turning with ease from one thing to another”

My idea of that camera: Sony NEX-6 or similar. But let us look into it closer. Sony NEX-6, in addition to native lenses, just about any lens out there can be used if it will cover at least an APS-C sensor. To me, that is pretty close to having a “universal mount”: Versatility.

So you have to carry multiple adapters for all those different lenses in differing lens mount, right? That makes your camera carrying requirement much larger and with many more pieces. That severely hurts your argument.

Nope. Obviously, you didn't understand the rest of my post (or never bothered to read it before responding). Just to help you get the point, multiple adapter is akin to mutliple lenses. I may use one adapter for a variety of lenses, or leave an adapter each on the lens. But, ultimately, I pick based on how I want to use my camera.

Most of these non-native lenses will necessitate manual focus, which is actually a strength of the system. You have Focus Peaking, Focus Magnify, Tiltable LCD screen and EVF. The camera will meter: Versatility.

Let me get this straight, MF is a STRENGTH?

You bet. Practically 100% of my photography is with manual focus, except on some occasions when I might use AF. I think I posted images from NBA game taken with AF and MF in the other thread(s).

You realize that you can MF with a dSLR too, right? I recognize that focus peaking is a big thing but it's certainly NOT more versatile to MF, even with focus peaking.

I wouldn't buy a DSLR today, much less for Manual Focus.

Some of the non-native mounts also allow for Auto Focus. It is for this reason, effort is being put in developing such adapters as we’ve recently seen from Metabones (with, or without AF). Then there is another tool that not only allows expansion of options for AF lenses, it literally transforms the AF system, from Minolta/Sony A-mount. Sports/Action photography, covered well: Versatility.

But not as well as a dSLR. So versatile, yes, but less so.

There are several points in the argument you responded to. Which one are you alluding to? Definitely not non-native mounts with AF, or is it? Heck, many DSLRs don't even support AF with their own mount depending on sensor size. Or, won't even meter properly.

As for Sport/Action photography, I enjoy that aspect of photography and I'm not the one complaining. You don't, but you're complaining.

Heading to the park for a walk? To a family dinner without lugging a bag or a camera hanging on the neck? Put 20mm f/2.8 pancake on NEX-6, you are covered (weight: 415g, < 1 lb. Size: pocketable). Street shooting? Put the relatively small 35mm f/1.8 (weight: 500g, just over 1 lb. Size: acceptable). A companion to bike through the mountains? Even the ultra-wide zoom (10-18 f/4) is tiny and light (225g). Want 10mm to 35mm versatility? You’re looking at net weight of the system (10-18, 20mm and 35mm lenses, plus body) at 795g… less than the body-only weight of a Full Frame DSLR. And in fact, the system itself is modular, that a person can choose to put a lens each in two pockets and skip the bag, to take advantage of: Versatility.

I can do all of those things easily with a dSLR, too. Is it larger? Sure. Is is heavier? Yep. Is the quality better and are there more lens options and is the quality better and is shooting easier and... all yes as well.

Actually, size, cost, weight are the key points made above. If you ignore all that... I rest my case. As for lens choices, virtually any lens you can put on your DSLR, I can use on my NEX. Can the opposite be done?

FF already offers almost all focal lengths and both variable aperture and fixed aperture lenses at those focal lengths. Why would FF users even bother with putting lenses designed for other systems.

They don't have to, if they want to lug around the bulk.

Its the other systems which DO NOT have as good coverage as the FF cameras that have to resort to adapting lenses from other similar systems. Nikon and Canon both have wide-angle, normal zoom, portrait and wide primes, telephotos at f2.8 and f4 which other systems DONT even come close to having.

What has that got to do with going mirror-less and with bodies that are smaller and more flexible?

Yes, you can adapt, and there goes the weight and size argument out of the window.

When you want to, or when you don't want to. Good to have options.

For normal primes Canikon have the option of f1.2, f1.4, f1.8 for every individual requirement. THAT IS CALLED VERSATILITY.

Do they necessitate 2+ lb body and the bulk to go with them?

Adapting these lenses to other systems means those systems are depending on FF lenses to overcome their weaknesses or lacking of certain features. You never see FF users trying to adapt lenses from other systems, bcoz they already have all accessories, lenses etc they need.

There are plenty right here in these forums.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
FoolyCooly Veteran Member • Posts: 3,484
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread

olliess wrote:

FoolyCooly wrote:

olliess wrote:

The OM-D is exceptional for its slightly smaller sensor size, but it doesn't quite match (for example) the same-generation NEX-6 and D7000, which at $900 are both cheaper than the OM-D at $1000. (Not to mention entry-level DSLRs like the D3200, which are at a much lower price point).

My E-PL5 shares the same sensor as the OM-D. I paid $400 for it new but retail street price is $550-$600.

... DSLRs in the $1000 price range have pentraprism OVFs, usually with 100% coverage.

What about the $600 price range?

For $600 you can get a DSLR with a cramped OVF or an E-PL5 with no viewfinder at all.

That DSLR is will also have issues with front focusing and back focusing or left side/right side AF issues where I will have none. There is no need for AF Micro Adjustment on a mirrorless system... yet I seem to have to add some compensation for each DSLR and lens combo I own.

An OVF is not needed on the E-PL5 because it's so lite. Holding it 10" from your face for an hour is no problem at all. Try the same with any DSLR and kit lens and tell me you don't get the shakes or that it just doesn't feel odd.

EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

I don't shoot sports, correct. I do, however, shoot plenty of low light 'action', such as people moving and dancing in low light. Sometimes even extreme low light. So I'm extremely equipped to understand versatility in that area, even if not for sports specifically.

Show me one image that you believe I cannot take with a NEX. And also tell me why you believe I couldn't.

I posted an example in a previous thread. It was f/2.8, 1/60th, ISO 104,000 I believe. Any questions?

Excuse me for not bothering with the dead thread. You could have posted it again here to cut the chase. That being said, which thread and post do I need to look?

EVF cameras are crippled in quite a few ways. If you're a regular user of them you're certainly aware of that. They do have some advantages though.

Their advantages are the reason I don't care for OVFs anymore. In fact, that brings to another fact: EVFs add to versatility.

Which is well and good for you, but largely irrelevant to the topic at hand. EVF's have advantages as I've admitted. However, they also have drawbacks.

It's not always practical, no one is arguing that. It's more versatile overall, though.

You went for the overhype.

Nope, I went for the versatile.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
MOD Biggs23 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,455
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
2

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

I read and understood. You said you could use an adapter to use lenses of different mounts. But each different mount requires a different adapter. Thus, if you want to use multiple lenses all of a different mount you must carry an adapter for each. Or am I wrong? Is there a magical adapter that allows the use of every other mount all at the same time?

Versatility lets you pick. You can choose to leave an adapter on every lens, or just use one adapter depending on your lens collection.

So now you're backtracking and admitting what I said from the get go; if you want to use multiple lenses from multiple mounts you must have adapters for each mount.

Most of these non-native lenses will necessitate manual focus, which is actually a strength of the system. You have Focus Peaking, Focus Magnify, Tiltable LCD screen and EVF. The camera will meter: Versatility.

Let me get this straight, MF is a STRENGTH?

You bet. Practically 100% of my photography is with manual focus, except on some occasions when I might use AF. I think I posted images from NBA game taken with AF and MF in the other thread(s).

100% of YOUR photography may very well be. But arguing that MF is MORE versatile and a STRENGTH for most users is hogwash.

I didn't say MF is more versatile.

Right, because it isn't. And if I want 14mm - 200mm at f/2.8 covered with a NEX I'd be forced to MF at least some of that range. Compared with a FF dSLR system where I could have the entire range with AF!

You realize that you can MF with a dSLR too, right? I recognize that focus peaking is a big thing but it's certainly NOT more versatile to MF, even with focus peaking.

I wouldn't buy a DSLR today, much less for Manual Focus.

I wouldn't buy a mirrorless today, much less for AF. What's that comment have anything to do with the topic at hand?

In fact you shouldn't buy a mirror-less camera if you must rely on AF at all times. Only if you prefer to expand the camera usage beyond a limited set of options, that you may want to consider it, as I did (and only to discover later that the AF aspect isn't missing either).

Another area you're coming around in, good to see it!

Some of the non-native mounts also allow for Auto Focus. It is for this reason, effort is being put in developing such adapters as we’ve recently seen from Metabones (with, or without AF). Then there is another tool that not only allows expansion of options for AF lenses, it literally transforms the AF system, from Minolta/Sony A-mount. Sports/Action photography, covered well: Versatility.

But not as well as a dSLR. So versatile, yes, but less so.

There are several points in the argument you responded to. Which one are you alluding to? Definitely not non-native mounts with AF, or is it? Heck, many DSLRs don't even support AF with their own mount depending on sensor size. Or, won't even meter properly.

All FF cameras that I know of will AF with any native lens that isn't a dedicated MF. I was responding to the concept of AF in general, which same generation FF dSLR's are better at than mirrorless cameras are.

If your option is limited to AF, then you have no choice. You're not looking for versatility, you're looking for something that meets your shorter list of must haves.

Nope. I think you misunderstand what versatility means. I can have BOTH AF and MF easily with a FF system and at a HUGE range of focal lengths and apertures. I am not afforded that luxury with a NEX or other mirrorless system. Thus, the FF system is the winner in terms of versatility, yet again.

As for Sport/Action photography, I enjoy that aspect of photography and I'm not the one complaining. You don't, but you're complaining.

I'm not complaining about anything. I think you're confusing complaining with discussing.

You're complaining that I couldn't take a NEX and shoot sports with it. Or, are you agreeing that I could?

WHEN DID I DO THAT? Seriously, don't misquote me. I'm sure you can shoot sports with a mirrorless system, just not as well or with as wide a range of options as with a FF system.

I've long admitted that mirrorless cameras do have some advantages. It's just that those advantages are incredibly overshadowed by the disadvantages.

Not for my money.

Your money doesn't matter in terms of overall versatility, which is what this conversation is about.

As for putting any lens on, what lens am I lacking in a native mount for FF?

Re-read my point.

You didn't make one.

The only reason that NEX (or similar) needs to put on other lenses is because not enough lenses have been developed for the native mount.

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily.

Many people buy NEX because they are able to use their old and new lenses from other systems. Also because one can find impressive values from the past, and have explore their photography skills with it. These mirror-less systems are fantastic tools towards that effect. I am one of these people.

True, but not related to the above.

Here is the other side. I like options. For example, I could have picked Samyang 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye lens for A-mount and used on NEX without an issue. I picked the 8mm f/2.8 Fisheye for E-mount (smaller and lighter).

I could have picked Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS for E-mount. I use Sony 35mm f/1.8 for A-mount instead. I could pick Tamron or Sony 18-200 OSS E-mount for travel zoom. I plan on using Sigma 18-250 OS A-mount instead.

In other words, I can pick and choose without much regard to mount itself, but what makes the most sense to me, with multiple options.

Right, but you're severely limited in what options are actually available natively.

What do I need to back up? I can do it with the gear I own. What details are needed?

Why kind of "details" are expected in a photography forum?

No idea. I asked a simple question, are you incapable of answering it?

That you can literally leave in your pockets when going for a casual walk?

When did I say that, exactly? You have a terrible habit of implying or outright stating that I said things I did not.

I didn't say you did, but that is the point you'd made an attempt to address.

No, it wasn't.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D5 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +5 more
OP vzlnc Regular Member • Posts: 314
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
2

FoolyCooly wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Sorry, DX and MFT.

Good enough for what, exactly? All I'm saying is FF provides more DoF options and is therefore more versatile, which is the point of this and the other threads. Nothing more.

Good enough for everything.

How about birds in flight, fast moving kids, indoor or outdoor sports, which REQUIRE PDAF. Now its entirely a different story that you MIGHT just get a decent picture doing CDAF or manual focusing using zone system, but isnt that a hell lot more cumbersome, not to mention you will NEVER get the exact shot you want bcoz of the nature of CDAF. Regardless of the sensor size or the lens, CDAF is NOT SUITABLE for these situations. Hell, even in regular snapshots CDAF misses the exact moment many times.

How about hand-holding long telephoto lens, not only its awkward, its so shaky that none of the IS or VR systems are going to compensate enough. Its just goes against nature when you are holding a small gripless compact with a long telephoto at an arms length and trying to turn the zoom ring. There is a reason why rifle-scopes are attached like that and why archers hold their arrow close to their eye. Not to mention the paid you will end up with.

Also you have end with no AF tracking that is a MUST for such situations.

MOD Biggs23 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,455
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
2

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

All FF cameras of the same generation as the mirrorless cameras you're speaking of are better at focusing in low light, IME. Older FF cameras are a different story, sure.

I have a 9+ year old camera that can focus in complete darkness.

To be pedantic, no it can't, but I understand your point.

Well, it can. That is the point of "Night Framing" option (Focuses in complete darkness for framing, but takes image in normal mode albeit requires flash).

COMPLETE darkness means that NO light is available. Literally, none. That's what the word means. If there is NO light than NOTHING can focus, not even your eyes. So no, it cannot focus in COMPLETE darkness.

Infra Red. Darkness to my eyes, not to the camera. Now you know? The camera is capable of "seeing" in IR light and acquire focus, even if our eyes can't.

Ah, you misunderstand the word, than. COMPLETE darkness is ZERO light in ANY spectrum. That means no infrared either. Read up, come back, enjoy.

Nonetheless, compare your NEX with a good FF dSLR of the same generation and the FF will focus more accurately and more consistently in low light. (-1EV or worse)

Let us hope so. If you're paying 3x as much, you better expect it. However, what if I choose to focus in even darker surroundings? What will be your option?

I can focus below -1EV, I was just using it as a baseline for comparison. I've successfully autofocused in about -4EV.

Let us try even darker. Who is more likely to miss focus, you or I? (Trick question)

Off topic.

I'd have to disagree. High ISO images from same generation FF dSLRs tend to be better than their mirrorless counterparts.

So, it is lack of mirror that is causing trouble at high ISO? I wonder if that applies to Sony RX1.

Nope, it's sensor size and the technology camera makers have used.

But RX1 is mirror-less.

I understand that. Not sure of your point.

You've been harping about FF DSLRs versus "mirror-less". Perhaps you should be more specific that you don't want to include FF mirror-less systems.

Oh, oops. This one's on me, I was confusing the model numbers and thinking of the RX100 which is a P&S. The RX1 is a FF but is not versatile at all considering its fixed lens.

The original question was about the most versatile system overall. Singular. As such, my arguments have related to options within that confine.

And cost plays a role, from design and delivery to buying.

Not in terms of the definition of a word it doesn't!

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D5 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +5 more
MOD Biggs23 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,455
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

I don't shoot sports, correct. I do, however, shoot plenty of low light 'action', such as people moving and dancing in low light. Sometimes even extreme low light. So I'm extremely equipped to understand versatility in that area, even if not for sports specifically.

Show me one image that you believe I cannot take with a NEX. And also tell me why you believe I couldn't.

I posted an example in a previous thread. It was f/2.8, 1/60th, ISO 104,000 I believe. Any questions?

Excuse me for not bothering with the dead thread. You could have posted it again here to cut the chase. That being said, which thread and post do I need to look?

I don't have it accessible to me on this computer or I would have. I believe it was posted in the first thread about sensor size and versatility.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D5 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads