Eagle Whisperer

Ok so I could go either way as you all know. The biggest problem I have is that I will not get the zoom I am used to unless I go with the bulkier camera. I love the Sony products and will probably end up with both in the future. New trendy whatever you want to call it is expensive right now and will get cheaper and better over time. I want to experiment as most of you have already done and that is why you are as knowledgeable as you are. You have already been there and done that. I decided I want to wait to buy the mirrorless camera when I can get a used version at a lower price.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

So show the results of your testing. What tripod and head did you use? I already am aware of how good the 2X TC and the 300 2.8 are, but I'd love to see the results of your testing. I too am keenly aware of what a good image is supposed to look like, and since you are suggesting that CIZ on an RX10M4 is a good reason to buy it, I have to question what your standard of quality really is.

My testing is simple - shoot a static subject at distances that one might encounter in the field, and on a very solid platform and electronic shutter to eliminate camera vibration. What are you using as a stable platform.

Actually, the cropped images which look better, are cropped more and have a lower pixel count, that the CIZ crop. And the hand held shot with the full frame camera, the best of them all, was shot hand held - just for comparison. I understand that you may have some challenges hand holding a long lens, given all the cool contraptions you have invented to minimize camera-born motion blur, but not everybody shares your situation. I shoot with many others - pros, enthusiasts, and hobbyists - that use lighter weight 400mm, 500mm and even the ultralight Canon and Nikkor 600mm F4s, and one guy who uses an 800mm F5.6 - but I think he is a little crazy and quite buff - obviously has a membership at a great gym and probably has a personal trainer anyway.

FYI, I am no longer in NYC, so while I welcome the "compliment" I suppose, but it would be amiss. I call lower Delaware home these days.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing your testing of CIZ, even if it isn't on the camera that you are recommending someone spend $1700 just because it has CIZ AND you are absolutely convinced that it is an important feature worth buying it for.

I disagree - and I posted the results to support my opinion. Your turn. . .

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I can't I lost some image files in a virus attack ..... I do still have it on my archived memory cards - but would take some doing to dig it out ....

I do not use the 2X CIZ very often - but if needed I will. 1.4-1.7X is where I try to stay - mostly with the Sigma 100-300 f4.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

No problem. When you get a chance. I did enjoy testing the little camera, btw. And I probably would not have done that had it not been for your bringing it up in recent threads. I do agree with you on one point - Sony's implementation of digital zoom is far ahead of the rest of the camera world.

Barketh

It's quite a project to choose a new camera. You have some really good advice here. Previously when I chose a camera I could only research in magazines (I have been taking photographs a looooong time) and make special trips to large camera shops - which no longer exist. When Ebay came along, I used that. I lived in a rural area, too. Luckily I always found equipment that worked for me. A year ago I thought I was done with photography - the weight of my gear had become an impediment. I sold my Canon EOS 5D Mark II and my 3 "L" lenses plus all the stuff that I had accumulated to go along with that. Immediately I regretted selling it but thought I'd sit with my decision for awhile and see how I felt. Here it is a year later. I miss my camera!!!! I need something lighter in weight but with either APSC or full frame sensor. I have narrowed it down to either Sony A6500 or A7iii. Don't know about lenses. I like to shoot stills of old buildings, landscapes, and some macro. Is it okay to horn in on your question and ask basically the same one for me? If not, I can start another thread. Good luck in you search for the perfect camera. I would appreciate anyone chiming in with feedback on choice of cameras and lenses.

Eagle Whisperer

I am still in love with the Sony a7 111 but to purchase the lens I require and all the separate gear needed to get going along with the extended warranty that I believe anyone needs it comes out around $5000. I had set a budget for $2500 then raised it to $3500 and decided I really shouldn't keep changing my goal. I hope they will be a little more affordable in a year or so and I will buy one then. That was my ultimate camera choice. This was my first time dealing with B & H and perhaps I am naive and still learning...and yes very lucky to get all this good advice...but 3 different salesman there said the mirrorless camera is just the removal of 1 mirror inside the camera...I don't know how many mirrors a camera has...and the price was too high right now as so trendy. I do think if they are as good as the Sony a7 seemed that they are the future. I just need to wait for the pricing to level out. Meantime I learn on a tried and true heavier model.

Eagle Whisperer

I may have misspoke. Head spinning with prices but I know the Sony a7 111 ended up over $4000 anyhow. Just trying to be practical and ease the itch for something new to play with in a reasonable fashion. That whole thing about smaller sensors less quality pics still has my head questioning all.

wetreed

I highly recommend the Nikon D500 which will cost you far less than $3500 with a great kit lens.