jaycoffman wrote:
It may just be a GAS attack but I am considering changing from my Nikon d7100 to a mirrorless in the near future. My two main reasons are that I hope to lighten and shrink my equipment even a small amount as it's getting harder to lug my d7100 and Tamron 18-400 lens around. I realize there will be some change in how I view my photography with a mirrorless and also that some lenses will be as big as what I have but between lugging the gear in the tank bag of my bike and jumping in and out of safari vehicles and walking through the brush I'm ready for a little relief. Second, I also find myself pushing the ISO in the d7100 for a lot of shots in very low light conditions and a lot of my pictures are very difficult to bring back from the snow factor when using high ISOs even with subscription Lightroom/Photoshop. My 50mm makes pushing possible but not enough for acceptable pictures.
Right now many reviewers are saying that the mirrorless Nikon Z6 is the best buy now but there are as many still sticking the the Sony a7III (both are at about the same price point). The Nikon attracts me because I'm used to Nikons. If I get the Z6 I'll also get the 24-70mm f4 lens for my general lens.
First Question: My two main lenses on my d7100 are the Tamron 18-400 and a Nikon 50mm 1.4 lens. Both are, I believe, for the crop sensor. So if I get the adapter for the Z6 will these work for me on the full frame Z6? I know they will increase the bulk when I need to use them but I will no longer need to use the 18-400 as a walk-around lens.
Second Question: Will I see low light improvement in the quality of my pictures with a mirrorless? (I understand that I am responsible for the content and getting the exposure factors right and I will always be working on that.) Low light performance is one of the things advertised about these full frame mirrorless cameras.
Last Question: Nikon vs. Sony--Will I have to do anything special with the FTZ cards, are they expensive and does anyone have experience with them?
If anyone has any other cameras in this range I'm open to suggestions. I'm not a pro and won't be but I do like trying to get good images that I can use in picture stories and other things but probably no huge prints.
Thanks for any thoughts. I will go to the local camera store tomorrow to see how each of these cameras feels to me and see what they say about my issues but I've been somewhat disappointed in their advice in the past which is why I'm posing this question.
It may just be a GAS attack but I am considering c... (
show quote)
This sounds like a smoke screen. Either this person is totally deluded by
marketing, or he
is marketing. Assuming the former:
Try a smart phone: smaller and lighter (since that's what you care about).
Also faster and cheaper! And you can make phone calls with it.
Funny how painters don't mind carrying around easels and paintboxes,
but amateur photoraphers now complain about the weight of their (mostly
plastic) cameras. Try a Nikon F2! Or a Sinar!
There is nothing new about mirrorless or tiny formats. Minox was both.
It's just that people used to care about image quality, and they were willing
to work to get good photographs. Times have changed.
Electronic viewfinders
are new. They do the job of an optical viewfinder,
but with lower resolution and lower contrast. However, an EVF can do three
things an OVF can't do: mess up the color, introduce a time lag and create
a big battery drain. We all love dead batteries!
Optical viewfinders draw 0 mA. And you are seeing the actual light from
the subject. EVF displays can't even match the sensor's contrast or
resolution.
Eventually, EVFs may be excellent. And global shutters (or even a separate
solid-state optical shutter) may be able to replace the mechanical shutter
in high-end cameras. But not today. Today mirrorless is a step backwards.
Before 1861, all cameras were mirrorless.
The reason EVIL/MILC cameras are being heavily promoted is that they are
cheaper to manufactuer: less labor to assemble. That's good for the
manufactuer, but not good for you
unlessthey pass along the savings---
which they are not doing. A Nikon Z7 costs $1000 more than a D-850
(both 45 megapixels). A Nikon Z6 costs about the same as the D800 did
(both about 24 megapixels).
You are paying more for less. You are a good consumer---the Nippon
Manufacturer's Association loves you.
You might be surprised by Henri Cartier-Bresson's "walk-around lens".
Or that of Annie Liebovitz, Bill Cunningham, Terry Richardson, Don McCullin
or Bruce Barnbaum. (Of course, one shouldn't listen to famous photographers,
only to advertising.)
Did you know you can now get a computerized minature bicycle? And
Tonka makes very small, compact trucks.
Or you could take up knitting instead of fauxtography (or marketing?).