Please help me to choose a FF camera system (landscape, wildlife)

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
OP filster7 New Member • Posts: 13
Re: Please help me to choose a FF camera system (landscape, wildlife)

mostlyboringphotog wrote:

My thought is that to fully appreciate FF sensor advantage, a higher MP count camera is a big plus so I would choose A7R III with your budget in mind.

If you can take advantage of US pricing B&H lists A7RIIIA with Sony FE 24-105mm F/4 G OSS for $3,100.00 USD (24-70mm lens kit is cheaper by $400.00), And add Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Contemporary Lens later on. This kit will clock in at about 5.5 lb or 2.5 kg.

I think the above would be rather amazing wildlife/landscape/travel package.

For DLSR options, my choice would be Nikon D850.

For real budget FF, Canon RP is on sale for $899. It gets a bad rap for lower DR rating but I found it to be eminently usable camera with noticeable technical image quality difference over the crop sensor cameras. It's also almost as compact and light as Sony A7C.

In my humble opinion, of course, and good luck.

Hi, thanks a lot for the advice, I really appreciate it. You got me thinking about the A7RIII. The only issue is that where I live (Europe) I can't get it at that price (that's a really good price BTW). I can get the A7III for around 1500 EUR and the A7RIII for around 2200 EUR (with the cashback counted in). So right now I'm thinking if I can justify the 700 EUR difference. Also, I watched/read some reviews that got me a bit concerned about the A7RIII's AF since the A7III's AF seems to be better (also the 4K video quality and high ISO performance). But I like that the A7RIII has the shutter rated for 2x the number of cycles and that it's built a bit better + of course the resolution (which I'm not sure right now if I'd be able to take advantage of). So this is what I'm trying to weight in right now.

The lenses I'm thinking about buying with the body are the Sony 24-105 f/4 and the Sony 200-600 f/5.6-6.3. I was looking at the Sigma 100-400 f/5-6.3 and it looks really nice but I think for wildlife I'd be better with a longer range (around 600). What do you think about the Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3? I personally don't like that the Sigmas extend while zooming (the Sony doesn't) and the weight shift associated with it.

OP filster7 New Member • Posts: 13
I can't respond in a timely manner since my posts need to be approved
1

I just want to thank everybody for the great advice I'm getting here. I read every response and I really appreciate everyone's opinion. Since my account is new my posts need to be approved by moderators and it's taking days, but I will reply.

photonium New Member • Posts: 4
Re: Please help me to choose a FF camera system (landscape, wildlife)

The lens isn't what keeps things in focus here, it is the camera. In fact the camera plays a far more important role in keeping things in focus - things like Eye AF, focussing 120 times per second, tracking across 90% of the frame.

If focus needs to be adjusted , the lens element needs to move, so lens can readjust 120 times per second? I thought camera can only evaluate focus, but is limited by lens autofocus motor.  Don't know about sony, but canon puts same autofocus system in entry level cameras than strips a few functions in firmware, remove option animal-eye, only keep human-eye, remove option to adjust field size, only full field in cheap camera, pay +$1500 dollar for those options. Maybe interesting for some, but expensive lens is safer investment, retains value much longer. If people shot birds for decades without this, why is 2020 camera software feature suddenly a must have?

ikolbyi Senior Member • Posts: 1,077
Re: Why only full-frame?
1

filster7 wrote:

ikolbyi wrote:

I didn't see in your post an explanation why you only want to consider a full-frame camera. If you can detail your reasoning it would better help us answer your above questions.

That said, if more than 50% of the camera will be used for video: Canon, Sony & Olympus are the top choices. Panasonic (both m4/3 & FF) are in the middle with Nikon & Fuji rounding out the bottom.

Hi, thanks for stopping by. I always associated full-frame with "better overall quality". This means better dynamic range, depth of field control, better perf. at high ISOs. But I only compare it with what I had experience with - D300 vs Canon 5D "back in the day". At that time I was mostly interested in landscape photography with occasional macro and I really liked the images 5D was giving. I liked D300 more for everything else.

The downside for the FF cameras at that time was that they were clunky and noisy - and more expensive. But nowadays it seems that the prices went down, FF DSLRs are more affordable and with mirrorless you event don't get the clunkiness and noisy mirror (but you get steep prices). So I was thinking if I'm going to invest into a system and buy a camera with 2-3 lenses now I better choose wisely.

I added video to the equation only recently but I'm gravitating towards it more and more I guess.

I read earlier you plan on traveling with this system to Iceland and have interest in photographing birds.  Please keep in mind the size and weight of a FF system lugging around on an airplane and carrying with you.  My former Full-Frame (FF) camera bag with 4 lenses weighted 26lbs on my back and the largest lens in that bag was a 105mm prime.  The same exact setup in m4/3 (Micro Four Thirds) weighed 15 lbs and the bag was smaller and it includes a 300mm zoom lens.

If you travel a lot, FF is not your friend.  This is why Olympus is #1 for safaris and bird photography.  It can do portrait work provided you obtain the right lens.  I mention this because every camera system has developed leaps-and-bounds improved over the past 10 years.  m4/3 in the early years did suffer, but not so much today especially if you buy quality lenses.

Here are some sample photos with Olympus m4/3 (not my best work but gives you an idea):

 ikolbyi's gear list:ikolbyi's gear list
Olympus E-M5 III Olympus E-M1 III Voigtlander 75mm F1.8 Heliar Classic Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 EZ +5 more
mostlyboringphotog Forum Pro • Posts: 10,427
Re: Please help me to choose a FF camera system (landscape, wildlife)
1

filster7 wrote:

mostlyboringphotog wrote:

My thought is that to fully appreciate FF sensor advantage, a higher MP count camera is a big plus so I would choose A7R III with your budget in mind.

If you can take advantage of US pricing B&H lists A7RIIIA with Sony FE 24-105mm F/4 G OSS for $3,100.00 USD (24-70mm lens kit is cheaper by $400.00), And add Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Contemporary Lens later on. This kit will clock in at about 5.5 lb or 2.5 kg.

I think the above would be rather amazing wildlife/landscape/travel package.

For DLSR options, my choice would be Nikon D850.

For real budget FF, Canon RP is on sale for $899. It gets a bad rap for lower DR rating but I found it to be eminently usable camera with noticeable technical image quality difference over the crop sensor cameras. It's also almost as compact and light as Sony A7C.

In my humble opinion, of course, and good luck.

Hi, thanks a lot for the advice, I really appreciate it. You got me thinking about the A7RIII. The only issue is that where I live (Europe) I can't get it at that price (that's a really good price BTW). I can get the A7III for around 1500 EUR and the A7RIII for around 2200 EUR (with the cashback counted in). So right now I'm thinking if I can justify the 700 EUR difference. Also, I watched/read some reviews that got me a bit concerned about the A7RIII's AF since the A7III's AF seems to be better (also the 4K video quality and high ISO performance). But I like that the A7RIII has the shutter rated for 2x the number of cycles and that it's built a bit better + of course the resolution (which I'm not sure right now if I'd be able to take advantage of). So this is what I'm trying to weight in right now.

The lenses I'm thinking about buying with the body are the Sony 24-105 f/4 and the Sony 200-600 f/5.6-6.3. I was looking at the Sigma 100-400 f/5-6.3 and it looks really nice but I think for wildlife I'd be better with a longer range (around 600). What do you think about the Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3? I personally don't like that the Sigmas extend while zooming (the Sony doesn't) and the weight shift associated with it.

You are most welcome and I do feel your pain about Europe vs. US pricing.

As with landscape/wildlife, all the details of foliage and feathers and fur becomes the cause célèbre, I would value high MP sensor at the cost of thinner wallet

Below is A7R3 vs. A73 DPR studio comparison, processed with DxO PL4 with DeepPRIME NR.

ISO 12800 A7R3 A73

These are ISO12800 and both have no noticeable noise but more detail and smoother tonality on the A7R3 is noticeable. Noise can be now processed without much reduction in the detail but if the detail was not captured by the sensor, even with AI based up res processing, it's not quite right,

In terms of Sony 200-600mm lens, for me the weight consideration would be significant and Sigma 150-600mm maybe for the DSLR and not for the mirrorless.

With more crop capability of A7R3, 100-400mm may cover 600mm in a pinch

-- hide signature --

My gear list is the opinion of DPR and not necessarily of my own.

 mostlyboringphotog's gear list:mostlyboringphotog's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Pentax 645Z Nikon 1 J5 Fujifilm GFX 50R Canon EOS RP
Krusty79 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,020
Re: I can't respond in a timely manner since my posts need to be approved
1

I am also looking at upgrading to the A7Riii. I shoot landscapes, so I like the idea of 42mp. Since I shoot wildlife, that will also allow me to crop a lot. One nice thing about these newer FF bodies is that they have an APS-C mode, so I can set the A7Riii for that mode, get the extra 50% magnification and still have about 18mp to work with.

While the Sony 200-600 is a great lens that I have not heard anything negative about, that quality does come in a heavy package. It is about 4.6 pounds, or a little over 2 kg. I hope you are familiar with using a heavy telephoto.

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gkphotos79/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/greg79
"You can't be young forever, but you can always be immature" - Larry Andersen

 Krusty79's gear list:Krusty79's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony a7R IIIA Rokinon 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye CS Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM Sony FE 200-600 F5.6-6.3
OP filster7 New Member • Posts: 13
Re: I can't respond in a timely manner since my posts need to be approved

Krusty79 wrote:

I am also looking at upgrading to the A7Riii. I shoot landscapes, so I like the idea of 42mp. Since I shoot wildlife, that will also allow me to crop a lot. One nice thing about these newer FF bodies is that they have an APS-C mode, so I can set the A7Riii for that mode, get the extra 50% magnification and still have about 18mp to work with.

While the Sony 200-600 is a great lens that I have not heard anything negative about, that quality does come in a heavy package. It is about 4.6 pounds, or a little over 2 kg. I hope you are familiar with using a heavy telephoto.

Yes, that's a good point about cropping for wildlife. Regarding the weight of the lens, it's a bit hefty, but it's the price I guess for what the lens is about. It won't be fun traveling with it but what I read about it convinced me that it would be the best option for wildlife around that price on the E-mount.

OP filster7 New Member • Posts: 13
Re: Please help me to choose a FF camera system (landscape, wildlife)

mostlyboringphotog wrote:

filster7 wrote:

mostlyboringphotog wrote:

My thought is that to fully appreciate FF sensor advantage, a higher MP count camera is a big plus so I would choose A7R III with your budget in mind.

If you can take advantage of US pricing B&H lists A7RIIIA with Sony FE 24-105mm F/4 G OSS for $3,100.00 USD (24-70mm lens kit is cheaper by $400.00), And add Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Contemporary Lens later on. This kit will clock in at about 5.5 lb or 2.5 kg.

I think the above would be rather amazing wildlife/landscape/travel package.

For DLSR options, my choice would be Nikon D850.

For real budget FF, Canon RP is on sale for $899. It gets a bad rap for lower DR rating but I found it to be eminently usable camera with noticeable technical image quality difference over the crop sensor cameras. It's also almost as compact and light as Sony A7C.

In my humble opinion, of course, and good luck.

Hi, thanks a lot for the advice, I really appreciate it. You got me thinking about the A7RIII. The only issue is that where I live (Europe) I can't get it at that price (that's a really good price BTW). I can get the A7III for around 1500 EUR and the A7RIII for around 2200 EUR (with the cashback counted in). So right now I'm thinking if I can justify the 700 EUR difference. Also, I watched/read some reviews that got me a bit concerned about the A7RIII's AF since the A7III's AF seems to be better (also the 4K video quality and high ISO performance). But I like that the A7RIII has the shutter rated for 2x the number of cycles and that it's built a bit better + of course the resolution (which I'm not sure right now if I'd be able to take advantage of). So this is what I'm trying to weight in right now.

The lenses I'm thinking about buying with the body are the Sony 24-105 f/4 and the Sony 200-600 f/5.6-6.3. I was looking at the Sigma 100-400 f/5-6.3 and it looks really nice but I think for wildlife I'd be better with a longer range (around 600). What do you think about the Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3? I personally don't like that the Sigmas extend while zooming (the Sony doesn't) and the weight shift associated with it.

You are most welcome and I do feel your pain about Europe vs. US pricing.

As with landscape/wildlife, all the details of foliage and feathers and fur becomes the cause célèbre, I would value high MP sensor at the cost of thinner wallet

Below is A7R3 vs. A73 DPR studio comparison, processed with DxO PL4 with DeepPRIME NR.

ISO 12800 A7R3 A73

These are ISO12800 and both have no noticeable noise but more detail and smoother tonality on the A7R3 is noticeable. Noise can be now processed without much reduction in the detail but if the detail was not captured by the sensor, even with AI based up res processing, it's not quite right,

In terms of Sony 200-600mm lens, for me the weight consideration would be significant and Sigma 150-600mm maybe for the DSLR and not for the mirrorless.

With more crop capability of A7R3, 100-400mm may cover 600mm in a pinch

Yes - "more is sometimes more", also in this case I'm considering the R but the price of the A7III is really tempting considering that it is more than a capable camera already. For the 200-600 - yes, it's hefty, but imagine the 600 + 1,4 teleconverter + A7RIII for better crops. That would be a fantastic reach

OP filster7 New Member • Posts: 13
Re: Why only full-frame?

ikolbyi wrote:

filster7 wrote:

ikolbyi wrote:

I didn't see in your post an explanation why you only want to consider a full-frame camera. If you can detail your reasoning it would better help us answer your above questions.

That said, if more than 50% of the camera will be used for video: Canon, Sony & Olympus are the top choices. Panasonic (both m4/3 & FF) are in the middle with Nikon & Fuji rounding out the bottom.

Hi, thanks for stopping by. I always associated full-frame with "better overall quality". This means better dynamic range, depth of field control, better perf. at high ISOs. But I only compare it with what I had experience with - D300 vs Canon 5D "back in the day". At that time I was mostly interested in landscape photography with occasional macro and I really liked the images 5D was giving. I liked D300 more for everything else.

The downside for the FF cameras at that time was that they were clunky and noisy - and more expensive. But nowadays it seems that the prices went down, FF DSLRs are more affordable and with mirrorless you event don't get the clunkiness and noisy mirror (but you get steep prices). So I was thinking if I'm going to invest into a system and buy a camera with 2-3 lenses now I better choose wisely.

I added video to the equation only recently but I'm gravitating towards it more and more I guess.

I read earlier you plan on traveling with this system to Iceland and have interest in photographing birds. Please keep in mind the size and weight of a FF system lugging around on an airplane and carrying with you. My former Full-Frame (FF) camera bag with 4 lenses weighted 26lbs on my back and the largest lens in that bag was a 105mm prime. The same exact setup in m4/3 (Micro Four Thirds) weighed 15 lbs and the bag was smaller and it includes a 300mm zoom lens.

If you travel a lot, FF is not your friend. This is why Olympus is #1 for safaris and bird photography. It can do portrait work provided you obtain the right lens. I mention this because every camera system has developed leaps-and-bounds improved over the past 10 years. m4/3 in the early years did suffer, but not so much today especially if you buy quality lenses.

Here are some sample photos with Olympus m4/3 (not my best work but gives you an idea):

Thanks for the advice and also for sharing your pictures. I'm a bit hesitant towards Olympus since I have an old E-510 and the picture quality is as you can imagine (usable at very low ISOs). I always thought that they "missed the target" a bit with 4/3rds - maybe with the exception of getting the 2x "boost" for reach - but you're right that my opinions and experiences are outdated. I became ever more skeptical after they sold their camera business (and also "killed" the 4/3rds mount) - like if they acknowledged their own failure. But I'm probably pretty biased here

ikolbyi Senior Member • Posts: 1,077
Re: Why only full-frame?
1

filster7 wrote:

Thanks for the advice and also for sharing your pictures. I'm a bit hesitant towards Olympus since I have an old E-510 and the picture quality is as you can imagine (usable at very low ISOs). I always thought that they "missed the target" a bit with 4/3rds - maybe with the exception of getting the 2x "boost" for reach - but you're right that my opinions and experiences are outdated. I became ever more skeptical after they sold their camera business (and also "killed" the 4/3rds mount) - like if they acknowledged their own failure. But I'm probably pretty biased here

My final thoughts on m4/3 (MFT) for a new buyer to consider.

1) MFT is not dead. Despite some saying the system is 'dead', it is far from it. Panasonic and Olympus (now OMD) have announced they will produce a replacement (modern) camera body based around the new Sony 4/3 sensor.

https://petapixel.com/2021/07/14/sony-reveals-new-micro-four-thirds-bsi-sensor-capable-of-120fps/

2) 3rd party lens. Additional manufactures produce lenses for m4/3 beyond Olympus/OMD and Panasonic, here is a list which includes Sigma and high-end Voigtländer:

https://www.four-thirds.org/en/lens/

3) Content creators still use m4/3 to produce production level materials. Here is a lens review using a Panasonic body with Voigtländer lens:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za9M5IBRGzQ

I happen to own this lens, here is a quick image of something I photographed outside on-the-fly, and it was photographed at f/2 not f/0.95:

 ikolbyi's gear list:ikolbyi's gear list
Olympus E-M5 III Olympus E-M1 III Voigtlander 75mm F1.8 Heliar Classic Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 EZ +5 more
Craig Gillette Forum Pro • Posts: 12,110
Re: Why only full-frame?

I'd suggest being harshly realistic about your budget and secondarily weight and bulk if doing a lot of traveling.  It's easy for us to blow your budget and none of us are carrying your kit around, on or off planes, etc.

FF, without some carefully selective choices is typically still going to be bigger and more expensive than smaller sensor systems.  If you have $xxxx, that can go to lenses and bodies, if it too much goes to a body, then there's less left for lenses, tripods, etc.  So while system performance is climbing and prices seem to be lowering, the cutting edge is still pricey and it may be sensible and wise to stay with a smaller sensor system.   There are seriously good offerings in aps-c and M43.

We can't really make ff cameras too much smaller.  Many users want comprehensive external control packages, dual card slots, respectable battery life, etc.   For example, aside from the small, aps-c similar A7C, the Sony ff A7s, etc., have been creeping up some in size.  But generally still smaller than most higher end dslrs. Price, size and weight are legitimate issues to consider.

There really aren't mirror-less aps-cs comparable to say the Canon 7D series or D500 Nikon.  Aside from Sony and Fuji, most of the other players in mirror-less are later to the game to their systems are less comprehensive.

One thing that is worth a thought or two, the high res  ffs can be cropped to useful aps-c  levels of pixel density, like the A7Riv crops to 26 mp.  A tad larger than the common 24 mp aps-c.  So they have the high res if desired for large prints and can take advantage of the "crop factor," so to speak, for use with longer focal lengths.  One can use the crop feature when using aps-c lenses (if available in that system) or simply crop in post, too.

At this point, Sony is the easiest to integrate aps-c and ff together if thinking of going aps-c with an eye to maybe add ff later..  The lens mount is the same, there's a pretty broad range of available bodies and lenses.  fuji doesn't have an ff to go to.  Canon seems to not have wroked out compatibility and forward integration of their aps-c offerings with the new mirror-less mount.  Nikon is slowly building their system, not as much in aps-c as Sony but the same mount and no compatibility issues.

ikolbyi Senior Member • Posts: 1,077
Re: Why only full-frame?

Craig Gillette wrote:

I'd suggest being harshly realistic about your budget and secondarily weight and bulk if doing a lot of traveling. It's easy for us to blow your budget and none of us are carrying your kit around, on or off planes, etc.

FF, without some carefully selective choices is typically still going to be bigger and more expensive than smaller sensor systems. If you have $xxxx, that can go to lenses and bodies, if it too much goes to a body, then there's less left for lenses, tripods, etc. So while system performance is climbing and prices seem to be lowering, the cutting edge is still pricey and it may be sensible and wise to stay with a smaller sensor system. There are seriously good offerings in aps-c and M43.

We can't really make ff cameras too much smaller. Many users want comprehensive external control packages, dual card slots, respectable battery life, etc. For example, aside from the small, aps-c similar A7C, the Sony ff A7s, etc., have been creeping up some in size. But generally still smaller than most higher end dslrs. Price, size and weight are legitimate issues to consider.

There really aren't mirror-less aps-cs comparable to say the Canon 7D series or D500 Nikon. Aside from Sony and Fuji, most of the other players in mirror-less are later to the game to their systems are less comprehensive.

One thing that is worth a thought or two, the high res ffs can be cropped to useful aps-c levels of pixel density, like the A7Riv crops to 26 mp. A tad larger than the common 24 mp aps-c. So they have the high res if desired for large prints and can take advantage of the "crop factor," so to speak, for use with longer focal lengths. One can use the crop feature when using aps-c lenses (if available in that system) or simply crop in post, too.

At this point, Sony is the easiest to integrate aps-c and ff together if thinking of going aps-c with an eye to maybe add ff later.. The lens mount is the same, there's a pretty broad range of available bodies and lenses. fuji doesn't have an ff to go to. Canon seems to not have wroked out compatibility and forward integration of their aps-c offerings with the new mirror-less mount. Nikon is slowly building their system, not as much in aps-c as Sony but the same mount and no compatibility issues.

- Based on the feedback of the OP (travel, wildlife, etc..) and your summary you outlined, this is why I am recommending the OP seriously consider Olympus/OMD.  It is the best "bang-for-the-buck" and not because I am using the system today.

My only reservation with Panasonic are their camera bodies tend to be the same size as FF camera bodies.  I am not sure why?  Olympus has kept true to travel size and the EM5.m3 may be the perfect camera for them.  They can use the extra cash and buy pro-grade lenses rather than 'kit lenses'.

 ikolbyi's gear list:ikolbyi's gear list
Olympus E-M5 III Olympus E-M1 III Voigtlander 75mm F1.8 Heliar Classic Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 EZ +5 more
Craig Gillette Forum Pro • Posts: 12,110
Re: Why only full-frame?

ikolbyi wrote:

Craig Gillette wrote:

I'd suggest being harshly realistic about your budget and secondarily weight and bulk if doing a lot of traveling. It's easy for us to blow your budget and none of us are carrying your kit around, on or off planes, etc.

FF, without some carefully selective choices is typically still going to be bigger and more expensive than smaller sensor systems. If you have $xxxx, that can go to lenses and bodies, if it too much goes to a body, then there's less left for lenses, tripods, etc. So while system performance is climbing and prices seem to be lowering, the cutting edge is still pricey and it may be sensible and wise to stay with a smaller sensor system. There are seriously good offerings in aps-c and M43.

We can't really make ff cameras too much smaller. Many users want comprehensive external control packages, dual card slots, respectable battery life, etc. For example, aside from the small, aps-c similar A7C, the Sony ff A7s, etc., have been creeping up some in size. But generally still smaller than most higher end dslrs. Price, size and weight are legitimate issues to consider.

There really aren't mirror-less aps-cs comparable to say the Canon 7D series or D500 Nikon. Aside from Sony and Fuji, most of the other players in mirror-less are later to the game to their systems are less comprehensive.

One thing that is worth a thought or two, the high res ffs can be cropped to useful aps-c levels of pixel density, like the A7Riv crops to 26 mp. A tad larger than the common 24 mp aps-c. So they have the high res if desired for large prints and can take advantage of the "crop factor," so to speak, for use with longer focal lengths. One can use the crop feature when using aps-c lenses (if available in that system) or simply crop in post, too.

At this point, Sony is the easiest to integrate aps-c and ff together if thinking of going aps-c with an eye to maybe add ff later.. The lens mount is the same, there's a pretty broad range of available bodies and lenses. fuji doesn't have an ff to go to. Canon seems to not have wroked out compatibility and forward integration of their aps-c offerings with the new mirror-less mount. Nikon is slowly building their system, not as much in aps-c as Sony but the same mount and no compatibility issues.

- Based on the feedback of the OP (travel, wildlife, etc..) and your summary you outlined, this is why I am recommending the OP seriously consider Olympus/OMD. It is the best "bang-for-the-buck" and not because I am using the system today.

I haven't followed M43 enough to see all of the pluses or perhaps minuses.  A while back I was chatting with some other folks at Morro rock and they were all using M43 systems.  I was standing there with a big tripod and 200-600 and they were casually standing there with a substantially smaller camera and 300mm lens combo.  Sensor size is sensor size, it frames, so to speak, the size of the gear, the sensor area when it comes to light, to some extent, with lenses, it drives depth of field - shallow or deep, etc.

It's kind of an impressions I have, after a couple of "system" changes over several years, is that some changes allow or force almost a complete "start over."  M43 doesn't have a straight forward path to aps-c or ff.  Kind of a start over or maintain 2 systems which is bothersome at best but not impossible.  It's just something to be considered.  If there is something you really want or need, and it's available in some systems but not others, that should be carefully considered.

My only reservation with Panasonic are their camera bodies tend to be the same size as FF camera bodies. I am not sure why? Olympus has kept true to travel size and the EM5.m3 may be the perfect camera for them. They can use the extra cash and buy pro-grade lenses rather than 'kit lenses'.

Maybe they've considered external controls, connections and ergonomics?  With a lot f video emphasis (I think?) and the potential for a wide range of extra attached gear, multiple connections, cages, etc., squeezing size down didn't seem needed?

Krusty79 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,020
Re: I can't respond in a timely manner since my posts need to be approved

filster7 wrote:

Krusty79 wrote:

I am also looking at upgrading to the A7Riii. I shoot landscapes, so I like the idea of 42mp. Since I shoot wildlife, that will also allow me to crop a lot. One nice thing about these newer FF bodies is that they have an APS-C mode, so I can set the A7Riii for that mode, get the extra 50% magnification and still have about 18mp to work with.

While the Sony 200-600 is a great lens that I have not heard anything negative about, that quality does come in a heavy package. It is about 4.6 pounds, or a little over 2 kg. I hope you are familiar with using a heavy telephoto.

Yes, that's a good point about cropping for wildlife. Regarding the weight of the lens, it's a bit hefty, but it's the price I guess for what the lens is about. It won't be fun traveling with it but what I read about it convinced me that it would be the best option for wildlife around that price on the E-mount.

Since I am frustrated that Canon never made the equivalent to a 7Diii for APS-C sensors and also never made a zoom telephoto to 600mm, I am switching to Sony so I can shoot with their 200-600. A good friend of mine just got that and an A1 and was getting great results the first time out. The A1 has 54mp and my friend said he was already able to get distant shots he couldn't get with his 20mp 7Dii and 100-400 (crop body).

To alleviate some of the weight issue, you can use it with a monopod without restricting your movement too much.

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gkphotos79/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/greg79
"You can't be young forever, but you can always be immature" - Larry Andersen

 Krusty79's gear list:Krusty79's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony a7R IIIA Rokinon 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye CS Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM Sony FE 200-600 F5.6-6.3
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads