p.6 #1 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
ruthenium wrote:
The MP size is a contentious issue. I haven't heard anyone saying that the A9iii is not a good camera because it has "only" 24MP. My guess is that 99.99% of photos are viewed on devices that dont have more than ca. 8 MP. Those few who print probably rarely need more than 20MP. Another guess is that 99% of photos posted on FM (not mine) have been resized to 1-2MP. I have a 50MP A1 and a 20MP OM-1 II, and the megapixel count is not a factor that makes some of my photos better to my eye. The number of MPs is like the lens "sharpness" - everyone wants these but I doubt that many FMers use or need these attributes, or that these attributes are central to photography in general. Basically, there is no need to worry too much about the "low" megapixel count of the 20 - 24MP sensors....Show more →
Most lenses cannot resolve 24MP (83 lp/mm) at all, and for those lens’s that can, it’s only in the center of the frame at a specific aperture.
The high MP sensor WILL extract more detail out of the same lens due to how the transfer function works (in theory 100% of lens resolution is extracted when the sensor resolution approaches infinity)
This means if a lens resolves 70 lp/mm on the 60MP sensor, maybe you can extract 68 lp/mm on the 24MP sensor, and a infinite resolution sensor can pull 72lp/mm. This is not very significant
Only if you have lenses that can actually resolve 60MP (130 lp/mm) that’s when you would see a bigger advantage for the high MP cameras. AFAIK there is no such lens for E mount
p.6 #2 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
aCuria wrote:
Most lenses cannot resolve 24MP (83 lp/mm) at all, and for those lens’s that can, it’s only in the center of the frame at a specific aperture.
The high MP sensor WILL extract more detail out of the same lens due to how the transfer function works (in theory 100% of lens resolution is extracted when the sensor resolution approaches infinity)
This means if a lens resolves 70 lp/mm on the 60MP sensor, maybe you can extract 68 lp/mm on the 24MP sensor, and a infinite resolution sensor can pull 72lp/mm. This is not very significant
Only if you have lenses that can actually resolve 60MP (130 lp/mm) that’s when you would see a bigger advantage for the high MP cameras. AFAIK there is no such lens for E mount
Even the 50-150 peaks at only 85 lp/mm, and only in the center of the frame at f/4 on the A7Riii (110 lp/mm sensor)
On the mid frame at f/2 it’s down to 53 lp/mm, far less detail than what a 24MP sensor can capture ...Show more →
But in real life, there's an actual benefit to higher res sensors: cropping.
Even using pixelshift with good lenses results in more detail when viewing at 100% / cropping...
p.6 #3 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
RoamingScott wrote:
I’m of the mind that there is value in having a Z8 for the better native Z options and a Sony for the better native E options, should one actually care that much.
Well, I decided to jump in with both feet (or one-and-a-half feet anyway). Z8 and 14-30mm on their way. I'll keep the 20-70mm G and the 100-400mm for now, but likely replace the later with the 180-600 if/when one pops up on refurb again.
Never thought I'd go back to Nikon, but here I go.
p.6 #4 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
Nikon has been making good cameras for a while now. The days of Sony being the only mirrorless full frame option in town are long over. MikeEvangelist wrote:
Well, I decided to jump in with both feet (or one-and-a-half feet anyway). Z8 and 14-30mm on their way. I'll keep the 20-70mm G and the 100-400mm for now, but likely replace the later with the 180-600 if/when one pops up on refurb again.
Never thought I'd go back to Nikon, but here I go.
p.6 #5 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
I can never understand someone shooting two platforms of the same format. I could understand shooting different formats for MF and FF, but 2 different full frame formats? When one factors in the all the peripheral items like batteries, cards, readers etc, let alone muscle memory, I can't see the sense in it. When I switched from Nikon to Sony 5+ years ago, I sold it all. Lost money, but was never in this to make money. I wanted the fastest ML autofocus available + the 200-600 zoom. At the time, Nikon had the z6/7 and FTZ converted 200-500. Not even close. They've caught up and even surpassed sony with some lenses, but not enough for me to switch or even think about it. Funny thing is that 2 of my Nikon friends say the 600 with built in tc is not as sharp with the tc engaged than if they disengage and add an external 1.4. I'd be pissed if I ponied up for the lens with built in tc and it was less sharp that adding the old school tc to the new lens with the tc disengaged.
I could never go back to 24mp as I am always cropping even when shooting with the 600gm and tc's. For my shooting, I have no interest in 10mb pre-capture jpgs. If I am spending the time and money to go somewhere on a trip and I have one chance to get the shot, I want raw, I want pre-capture and I want 50mp.
Once again, for what I shoot, I couldn't imagine being limited to 10mb jpg or 24 mp.
However, my needs/wants are subjective to me and not others. If 10mb jpg and 24mp works for you, I'd suggest selling all the Sony and re-learn the Nikon muscle memory. Don't make yourself crazy with 2 kits.
All of the big 3 are offering the best gear of our lifetime right now, even with compromises each brand has.
p.6 #6 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
ps09 wrote:
If 10mb jpg and 24mp works for you, I'd suggest selling all the Sony and re-learn the Nikon muscle memory. Don't make yourself crazy with 2 kits.
That is not adequate, as you say. That's why I'm going for the Z8, replacing the Sony body.
p.6 #7 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
MikeEvangelist wrote:
Well, I decided to jump in with both feet (or one-and-a-half feet anyway). Z8 and 14-30mm on their way. I'll keep the 20-70mm G and the 100-400mm for now, but likely replace the later with the 180-600 if/when one pops up on refurb again.
Never thought I'd go back to Nikon, but here I go.
I think you are missing out on Z 24-120, it's best 24-70/120 F4 lens ever made, pseudo macro to boot.
Like you I transitioned from E to Z, but I only use E lenses which are optically correct (Samyang/Rokinon AF 135 F1.8, Sigma 50mm F1.2) and do not rely on software trickery. 20-70 G is a wonderful lens but the distortions on it are super crazy and Megadap won't correct them.
p.6 #8 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
Outstanding wrote:
I think you are missing out on Z 24-120, it's best 24-70/120 F4 lens ever made, pseudo macro to boot.
Like you I transitioned from E to Z, but I only use E lenses which are optically correct (Samyang/Rokinon AF 135 F1.8, Sigma 50mm F1.2) and do not rely on software trickery. 20-70 G is a wonderful lens but the distortions on it are super crazy and Megadap won't correct them.
100% agree. I was pretty disgusted when I tested the 20-70G and saw how optically goofy it is. I had been already been shooting the Z 24-120 for years, though, so my bar was literally the highest it could be.
p.6 #9 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
Outstanding wrote:
Like you I transitioned from E to Z, but I only use E lenses which are optically correct (Samyang/Rokinon AF 135 F1.8, Sigma 50mm F1.2) and do not rely on software trickery. 20-70 G is a wonderful lens but the distortions on it are super crazy and Megadap won't correct them.
---------------------------------------------
RoamingScott wrote:
100% agree. I was pretty disgusted when I tested the 20-70G and saw how optically goofy it is. I had been already been shooting the Z 24-120 for years, though, so my bar was literally the highest it could be.
I may end up with the 24-120mm, but for now the 20-70mm works fine. Lightroom corrects the distortions, as usual. And it doesn't especially bother me that it's not corrected in the viewfinder.
p.6 #12 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
MikeEvangelist wrote:
Well, I decided to jump in with both feet (or one-and-a-half feet anyway). Z8 and 14-30mm on their way. I'll keep the 20-70mm G and the 100-400mm for now, but likely replace the later with the 180-600 if/when one pops up on refurb again.
Never thought I'd go back to Nikon, but here I go.
Hopefully this is a good contrarian indicator that A7v will come with pre capture.
p.6 #14 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
ps09 wrote:
I can never understand someone shooting two platforms of the same format. I could understand shooting different formats for MF and FF, but 2 different full frame formats? When one factors in the all the peripheral items like batteries, cards, readers etc, let alone muscle memory, I can't see the sense in it.
It's driven by use cases. It appears that for the genre(s) you're working in, a single platform offers everything you need. I do a lot of reproduction work on a copy stand, and love photographing my kids and dogs running around. For the former use case I need the best flat-field 1:1 macro, reliable tethering software, and a well-implemented pixel shift. For the latter I need high-quality eye AF (in low light) and fast (f/1.8 or faster) lenses with high-performance AF motors in them. Any single platform would make me compromise something. But the E+Z combo offers a complete solution.
But some of it is just GAS or loving the variety, for sure. At some point I had a dozen of 6x6 film cameras, and simply enjoyed different handling/shooting experience they offered.
p.6 #16 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
@MikeEvangelist I own a Z8 and sometimes shoot in situations where one would want to use pre-capture, but I never felt the need to even try it. I simply begin shooting at 20fps about a second ahead of the anticipated action. The fast electronic shutter eliminates any concerns of shutter wear. The fast and huge flash card eliminates storage or buffer size concerns. From my perspective, pre-capture is just a minor convenience feature that simply avoids storing falsely-anticipated images, but at a significant expense of losing RAW. I can just delete them manually later.
Basically, my point is that any camera with a decent buffer and a fast enough card can be used in a "pre-capture mode", and with full RAW support, so I am a bit puzzled by your enthusiasm. Are you sure that losing RAW is worth the convenience of auto-deletion of false-start bursts?
p.6 #17 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
Sitting in a kayak last Weds on green herons waiting for them to hunt in duck weed. Precapture on for nearly 10 minutes until bam, they leap from the stick into the water to fish. With precapture I got it all. Before precapture I would get the shot once the head was in the water on the way out instead of the entire sequence. When you can’t predict when it will happen, precapture saves the day. In the old days I would have shot groups of 300 images anticipating the action. The action would always happen as I hit the buffer or just before I started praying again.
Bottom line is, if you have shot with precapture and don’t know why you need it, you don’t need it. It’s a game changer if it relates to the shooting you do. Otherwise, it’s a feature not worth paying for.
I have an a1ii and a1. I have never left the a1ii at home and just taken the a1 for wildlife. And I can live without the quirks of the AI subject recognition which disappoints me 50% of the time with loons and other floating birds.
p.6 #18 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
ps09 wrote:
Sitting in a kayak last Weds on green herons waiting for them to hunt in duck weed. Precapture on for nearly 10 minutes until bam, they leap from the stick into the water to fish. With precapture I got it all. Before precapture I would get the shot once the head was in the water on the way out instead of the entire sequence. When you can’t predict when it will happen, precapture saves the day. In the old days I would have shot groups of 300 images anticipating the action. The action would always happen as I hit the buffer or just before I started praying again.
Bottom line is, if you have shot with precapture and don’t know why you need it, you don’t need it. It’s a game changer if it relates to the shooting you do. Otherwise, it’s a feature not worth paying for.
I have an a1ii and a1. I have never left the a1ii at home and just taken the a1 for wildlife. And I can live without the quirks of the AI subject recognition which disappoints me 50% of the time with loons and other floating birds. ...Show more →
Give it a couple years and you will tell your camera what photo you want and then let it go and get that photo for you. All this auto everything feels like we are slipping away from photography and entering a different type of image capture era.
p.6 #19 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
chez wrote:
Give it a couple years and you will tell your camera what photo you want and then let it go and get that photo for you. All this auto everything feels like we are slipping away from photography and entering a different type of image capture era.
One can record video in 8K at 25fps and cherry-pick frames from the footage later.
