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

[bartolyni]

Hi,

I just returned from a great 3 week vacation in the South West of the USA. I shot with 3 cameras. Here are my thoughts:

http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=7320

Joachim
http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com

I see there are some tags underneath e.g. US travel etc. You have some images from this particular trip?

Deed

He doesn't seem to have any shots taken though he had unprecedented amount of gear to carry....He has generated loads of clickthoughs to his website though!! He is no doubt alot more smarter than many of us in financial sense...

 

[deednets]

Hi,

I just returned from a great 3 week vacation in the South West of the USA. I shot with 3 cameras. Here are my thoughts:

http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=7320

Joachim
http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com

I see there are some tags underneath e.g. US travel etc. You have some images from this particular trip?

Deed

He doesn't seem to have any shots taken though he had unprecedented amount of gear to carry....He has generated loads of clickthoughs to his website though!! He is no doubt alot more smarter than many of us in financial sense...

Really? Please explain where you get this information from!

Deed

 

[Muresan Bogdan]

Why would you need adapters? The OP chose to adapt a lens that he already owned I assume but the 16-35 FE lens is excellent. The Sony cameras and native lenses are certainly capable for on the move, switching lenses and traveling light - in fact in some ways they can be better especially when you consider the potential of the A7rII (aside from the resolution). I'm not sure why you'd suggest otherwise.

How can you call it travelling light with 5 camera's....

Next to that what do you safe on the weight of A7 and FF lenses?
Only 300 grams in total on the weight of the body only and none at all on the lenses.

On FF mirrorless there are actually no weight savings when you compare with DSLR. Lens weight roughly the same and the Sony A7r II is about 200gr lighter than Canon 5Dsr. But the amount of batteries you need to carry for the Sony will compensate for the weight difference.

The only way to travel light is to accept the compromise of either a fixed lens FF or a smaller sensor system : APS-C or M4/3.

He makes compromises which would not be mine. But to each his own choice.
He chooses to use higher ISO's to compensate on shutterspeed by using lenses with small apertures only starting with f4.0 lenses and slower.

He chooses for photo's with pretty wide depth of field and therewith loosing the ability to make details stand out by making them stand loose from the background.

Sometimes puting things into context is not a bad thing, especially for travel photography. Even for portraits if on location I will use a smaller aperture and/or wider lens to also give an idea of the location. As you said, it's maybe a choice not a compromise.

Nothing wrong with the choice he makes or if landscapes are your thing, but for shooting portraits or details, a shallower DoF is often something one wants to use. In low light conditions and landscapes I personally prefer to use faster lenses then upping the ISO to compensate for shutterspeed.

To each his own, but his choice would not be mine.

 

[forpetessake]

I've been between Sony and Fuji for quite awhile. I can't say one system is better than the other.

Apart from many technical differences, lenses, etc. these two systems have different approach to rendering color. Sony is more traditional and Fuji is ... something different, which is hard to put in words. As one reviewer put it: "Fujifilm is rather moody and Sony is rather realistic." It's not a bad way of putting it. Fuji is doing very well with portraits, people and animals, it does seem to convey mood of bad weather, pastel colors. Sony is good with bold and contrasty colors, like those yellow hues in the foliage. So I guess, which system is better depends on the kind of images you like to take.

 

[Joachim Gerstl]

Interesting blog post. I'm about to embark on a similar trip myself. I'm a little unsure whether I'll bring my D750 along. You said you didn't use your DSLR/Canon much because of the Sony, but if the DSLR had been your only full frame option, would you have been less likely to leave the DSLR at home?

I'm tempted by the Sony, but not about to invest in a whole new system right now. Have some excellent lenses for the X-T1 but sort of prefer to shoot with my D750. So for me it's more a question if I will miss a full frame sensor shooting landscapes (and nightscapes, so I'll need the tripod).

Do you have any opinion on that?

I would not hesitate to bring your Nikon gear. I love to travel light but if there is one country where it is not that important it is the USA.

When I'm in Asia or in a European city I think twice about every lens I take with me. If you have to carry you camera around the whole day it makes a lot of sense to reduce the amount of gear. Very often I take nothing but the Fuji X-T1 plus the 14mm and the 27mm lens.

 

[mrswitters]

I've been between Sony and Fuji for quite awhile. I can't say one system is better than the other.

Apart from many technical differences, lenses, etc. these two systems have different approach to rendering color. Sony is more traditional and Fuji is ... something different, which is hard to put in words. As one reviewer put it: "Fujifilm is rather moody and Sony is rather realistic." It's not a bad way of putting it. Fuji is doing very well with portraits, people and animals, it does seem to convey mood of bad weather, pastel colors. Sony is good with bold and contrasty colors, like those yellow hues in the foliage. So I guess, which system is better depends on the kind of images you like to take.

This is helpful, as I am interested in the A7R II. I'm planning to replace my 5DIII + lenses. I bought an X-T1 + 23/35/56, and I love it in many ways. I do miss the extra resolution and shallow DOF of full-frame, though.

I shoot almost exclusively portraits these days, and I have to say the way Fuji handles skin tones is shockingly good. The Pro Negative Standard is incredibly true to what I see with my naked eyes.

It's gotten to the point where I am mostly using JPEGs straight out of the camera, which is saying a lot for a guy who has shot exclusively RAW for 10 years.

Also, 35mm is my favorite focal length and I'm disappointed that there isn't a smaller, lighter 35/2 for the A7R II. I know the 35/2.8 is an excellent lens, but that's not quite fast enough for me. I like to get close and shoot wide open at 35mm. The Batis 25/2 looks excellent, and I know cropping is possible, but it's a different experience shooting with a 25 vs 35 prime.

 

[Joachim Gerstl]

Hi,

I just returned from a great 3 week vacation in the South West of the USA. I shot with 3 cameras. Here are my thoughts:

http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=7320

Joachim
http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com

Joachim, as always beautiful picture, and interesting to read.

I've been Fuji X owner since the X-pro1. I sold it, and got the X-T1 when that came out. I have the following lenses: Samyang 12mm f2, XF 14mm f/2.8, XF 18mm f/2, XF 23mm f/1.4, XF 35mm f/1.4 and XF 56mm f/1.2. So you can see I'm heavily invested into Fujinon lenses. I love them all - in their own way.

Now, I've been wishing for four things the last year: 1. more resolution. 2. full frame sensor. 3. better video (now that I have become a father!) and... 4. better lightroom support for my landscape shots (with green foilage). I shoot raw.

Why? Because I'm 100% convinced that more expensive equipment will make me a better photographer!! Just kidding. Nah, this is my hobby. These is where I spend my money I have to spare. So. It won't make me better. But it will be nice to have. And the 4K video will be nice since we have a big 65" 4K TV already.

I bought a Sony a6000 for my wife. The kit lens wasn't all that good. But then I invested in the Sony FE 16-35mm f/4 lens - oh my oh my... that's a good lens.

When I saw what the a6000 could do with that lens I decided to get the Sony A7r MkII when it comes out. The A7r Mk II will be my "heavy" system for landscapes, with tripods and all - and video too.

The ergonomics and the menu system of the a6000... Oh dear. I really don't like it. So, how do you think I will enjoy (or not) the Sony A7r Mk2? I guess it's quite similar to your A7r? How do you handle going from Fuji X to Sony A7r? Is it even possible. The Fuji X system is so fun to shoot.

 

[Joachim Gerstl]

Hi,

I just returned from a great 3 week vacation in the South West of the USA. I shot with 3 cameras. Here are my thoughts:

http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=7320

Joachim
http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com

I see there are some tags underneath e.g. US travel etc. You have some images from this particular trip?

Deed

Yes, a lot. On my hard drive.

 

[Joachim Gerstl]

I've been between Sony and Fuji for quite awhile. I can't say one system is better than the other.

Apart from many technical differences, lenses, etc. these two systems have different approach to rendering color. Sony is more traditional and Fuji is ... something different, which is hard to put in words. As one reviewer put it: "Fujifilm is rather moody and Sony is rather realistic." It's not a bad way of putting it. Fuji is doing very well with portraits, people and animals, it does seem to convey mood of bad weather, pastel colors. Sony is good with bold and contrasty colors, like those yellow hues in the foliage. So I guess, which system is better depends on the kind of images you like to take.

This is helpful, as I am interested in the A7R II. I'm planning to replace my 5DIII + lenses. I bought an X-T1 + 23/35/56, and I love it in many ways. I do miss the extra resolution and shallow DOF of full-frame, though.

I shoot almost exclusively portraits these days, and I have to say the way Fuji handles skin tones is shockingly good. The Pro Negative Standard is incredibly true to what I see with my naked eyes.

It's gotten to the point where I am mostly using JPEGs straight out of the camera, which is saying a lot for a guy who has shot exclusively RAW for 10 years.

Also, 35mm is my favorite focal length and I'm disappointed that there isn't a smaller, lighter 35/2 for the A7R II. I know the 35/2.8 is an excellent lens, but that's not quite fast enough for me. I like to get close and shoot wide open at 35mm. The Batis 25/2 looks excellent, and I know cropping is possible, but it's a different experience shooting with a 25 vs 35 prime.

If your focus is on portraits stay away from Sony/Nikon. Skin tone is an issue even if you shoot RAW. I'm not saying that it can't be managed but it is tricky.

 

[bvphotos]

I've not seen a reputable review of the Sony 16-35FE but maybe you can point me to one. I have seen several on the Sony Zeiss 24-70 and it's a very expensive yet disappointing lens. There are good primes in the 35 and 55 with the Zeiss designation and I believe Sony's 70-200's are pretty good but man what a bastardized mess of lenses, mounts and designations. I don't understand it but maybe you can explain it better than IR.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/01/21/mounting-confusion-de-mystifying-sony-lens-mounts

For someone who admits to not being fully familiar with the Sony ecosystem, you sure did start off making some strong statements against it.

I own both Fuji and Sony. Sony does have some really good lenses and is also amenable to adapting all kinds of other lenses.

Fuji, of course, is a wonderful system too.

 

[Lakeview Man]

Hi,

I just returned from a great 3 week vacation in the South West of the USA. I shot with 3 cameras. Here are my thoughts:

http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=7320

Joachim
http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com

Joachim, as always beautiful picture, and interesting to read.

I've been Fuji X owner since the X-pro1. I sold it, and got the X-T1 when that came out. I have the following lenses: Samyang 12mm f2, XF 14mm f/2.8, XF 18mm f/2, XF 23mm f/1.4, XF 35mm f/1.4 and XF 56mm f/1.2. So you can see I'm heavily invested into Fujinon lenses. I love them all - in their own way.

Now, I've been wishing for four things the last year: 1. more resolution. 2. full frame sensor. 3. better video (now that I have become a father!) and... 4. better lightroom support for my landscape shots (with green foilage). I shoot raw.

Why? Because I'm 100% convinced that more expensive equipment will make me a better photographer!! Just kidding. Nah, this is my hobby. These is where I spend my money I have to spare. So. It won't make me better. But it will be nice to have. And the 4K video will be nice since we have a big 65" 4K TV already.

I bought a Sony a6000 for my wife. The kit lens wasn't all that good. But then I invested in the Sony FE 16-35mm f/4 lens - oh my oh my... that's a good lens.

When I saw what the a6000 could do with that lens I decided to get the Sony A7r MkII when it comes out. The A7r Mk II will be my "heavy" system for landscapes, with tripods and all - and video too.

The ergonomics and the menu system of the a6000... Oh dear. I really don't like it. So, how do you think I will enjoy (or not) the Sony A7r Mk2? I guess it's quite similar to your A7r? How do you handle going from Fuji X to Sony A7r? Is it even possible. The Fuji X system is so fun to shoot.

 

[deednets]

Hi,

I just returned from a great 3 week vacation in the South West of the USA. I shot with 3 cameras. Here are my thoughts:

http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=7320

Joachim
http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com

I see there are some tags underneath e.g. US travel etc. You have some images from this particular trip?

Deed

Yes, a lot. On my hard drive.

 

[Just a Photographer]

I've been between Sony and Fuji for quite awhile. I can't say one system is better than the other.

Apart from many technical differences, lenses, etc. these two systems have different approach to rendering color. Sony is more traditional and Fuji is ... something different, which is hard to put in words. As one reviewer put it: "Fujifilm is rather moody and Sony is rather realistic." It's not a bad way of putting it. Fuji is doing very well with portraits, people and animals, it does seem to convey mood of bad weather, pastel colors. Sony is good with bold and contrasty colors, like those yellow hues in the foliage. So I guess, which system is better depends on the kind of images you like to take.

This is helpful, as I am interested in the A7R II. I'm planning to replace my 5DIII + lenses. I bought an X-T1 + 23/35/56, and I love it in many ways. I do miss the extra resolution and shallow DOF of full-frame, though.

I shoot almost exclusively portraits these days, and I have to say the way Fuji handles skin tones is shockingly good. The Pro Negative Standard is incredibly true to what I see with my naked eyes.

Really? How often did you need the few millimeters less DoF.

Lets put this into perspective with a real life situation which is quite common for a portrait session.

FF 85mm lens at f1.4 subject distance for portraiture is approximately 3.5 meters.
This will give you a depth of field of 15cm

APS-C camera with 56mm at f1.4 subject distance for portraiture is the same.
This will give you a depth of field of 23cm.

The difference is 8 centimeters of extra DoF. or appr.. 4 cm before and 4cm behind your subject that you have extra in focus.

Nobody is looking for a portrait picture where the eyes are sharp and the nose and or lips are not. Most people want the whole face to be in sharp focus unless you are looking for a specific effect.

In all cases with or without a FF camera the fore- and background will be blurred. The result is always the same. In a blind test its very difficult to tell which picture was taken with which camera. The bokeh will with both camera's be creamy and pleasant to look at

Full Frame is seen by many as the holey grail, but those that use APS-C and FF extensively know that in real life situations the difference is there, but rather small.

If you really want better then APS-C go Medium Format and leave FF for what it is.

 

[Toccata47]

That post wasn't meant for you, but for the poster above in the quotation chain.

Umm...are there advertisements on the sidebars? Yes,

No. Not in my browser there are not.

bensherman, post: 56171219, member: 613622"]

Joachim Gerstl, post: 56171219, member: 613622"]
Hi,

I just returned from a great 3 week vacation in the South West of the USA. I shot with 3 cameras. Here are my thoughts:

http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=7320

Joachim
http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com

Some lads love attention...You, unfortunately, have craving for it...

Who shoot pics and keep them all to themselves. If sharing pics and adding some personal views on the gear used is craving attention than that is not Joachim speciality.

What I see are fanboys with long toes. get over it. It is just gear and the appeal of a Sony FF is not exactly a very odd one. Many of them on various fora.

[/QUOTE]

 

[rkhpedersen]

Why go Medium Format or APS-C if FF hit the sweet spot for what you want to do? That makes no sense.

I think it's important to realise that we all have different needs and what works for you is not the holy grail for everybody else.

 

[Jorginho]

That post wasn't meant for you, but for the poster above in the quotation chain.

Umm...are there advertisements on the sidebars? Yes,

No. Not in my browser there are not.

bensherman, post: 56175809, member: 835764"]

Joachim Gerstl, post: 56175809, member: 835764"]
Hi,

I just returned from a great 3 week vacation in the South West of the USA. I shot with 3 cameras. Here are my thoughts:

http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=7320

Joachim
http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com

Some lads love attention...You, unfortunately, have craving for it...

Who shoot pics and keep them all to themselves. If sharing pics and adding some personal views on the gear used is craving attention than that is not Joachim speciality.

What I see are fanboys with long toes. get over it. It is just gear and the appeal of a Sony FF is not exactly a very odd one. Many of them on various fora.

Oh..sorry! I thought it was meant for me.

 

[mrswitters]

Really? How often did you need the few millimeters less DoF.

Lets put this into perspective with a real life situation which is quite common for a portrait session.

FF 85mm lens at f1.4 subject distance for portraiture is approximately 3.5 meters.
This will give you a depth of field of 15cm

APS-C camera with 56mm at f1.4 subject distance for portraiture is the same.
This will give you a depth of field of 23cm.

The difference is 8 centimeters of extra DoF. or appr.. 4 cm before and 4cm behind your subject that you have extra in focus.

Nobody is looking for a portrait picture where the eyes are sharp and the nose and or lips are not. Most people want the whole face to be in sharp focus unless you are looking for a specific effect.

In all cases with or without a FF camera the fore- and background will be blurred. The result is always the same. In a blind test its very difficult to tell which picture was taken with which camera. The bokeh will with both camera's be creamy and pleasant to look at

Full Frame is seen by many as the holey grail, but those that use APS-C and FF extensively know that in real life situations the difference is there, but rather small.
If you really want better then APS-C go Medium Format and leave FF for what it is.

If you use the "How Much Blur" calculator, you can see that there is a noticeable and significant difference in background blur between FF and APS-C at equivalent apertures and focal lengths.

200mm at f/2.8: http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-1.5x-140mm-f2.8-and-1x-200mm-f2.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

85mm at f/1.2: http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-1.5x-56mm-f1.2-and-1x-85mm-f1.2-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

This matches my experience. We can argue about whether this makes a difference, but that's largely an aesthetic choice.

In any event, FWIW I'm not at all convinced that I need an A7R II or 5D III for this extra blur/subject isolation, but that doesn't mean that some people don't appreciate/want it.

 

[Just a Photographer]

Why go Medium Format or APS-C if FF hit the sweet spot for what you want to do? That makes no sense.

I think it's important to realise that we all have different needs and what works for you is not the holy grail for everybody else.

 

[Just a Photographer]

If you use the "How Much Blur" calculator, you can see that there is a noticeable and significant difference in background blur between FF and APS-C at equivalent apertures and focal lengths.

200mm at f/2.8: http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-1.5x-140mm-f2.8-and-1x-200mm-f2.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

85mm at f/1.2: http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-1.5x-56mm-f1.2-and-1x-85mm-f1.2-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

This matches my experience. We can argue about whether this makes a difference, but that's largely an aesthetic choice.

You are not making fair comparissons.

200mm FF is NOT 85mm APS-C. Next to that f1.2 is f1.2 for both sensor types.

 

[Joachim Gerstl]

Umm...are there advertisements on the sidebars? Yes, then the blog is a commercial endeavor as well as a hobby. Would your opinion change if you thought that the OP was motivated by clickthroughs in order to sell the site to advertisers?

Please show me what ads you have found on my website?

Hi,

I just returned from a great 3 week vacation in the South West of the USA. I shot with 3 cameras. Here are my thoughts:

http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=7320

Joachim
http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com

Some lads love attention...You, unfortunately, have craving for it...

Who shoot pics and keep them all to themselves. If sharing pics and adding some personal views on the gear used is craving attention than that is not Joachim speciality.

What I see are fanboys with long toes. get over it. It is just gear and the appeal of a Sony FF is not exactly a very odd one. Many of them on various fora.