Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

Sounds like you haven't even looked at the waters. "Vetted"? Sony's on its third generation of full-frame mirrorless with nine full-frame bodies in five years.

Why do you think Nikon -- cash-strapped as it is -- made a new mount for its full-frame mirrorless line and is developing new lenses for it? Because your existing DSLR glass is not optimal for mirrorless cameras. Nope, they are merely "adequate," or a stop-gap -- as are Nikon's Z6 and Z7, an effort to stop its customer base from jumping ship for Sony.

But I agree you should not switch just for the sake of all the advantages a Sony mirrorless system has to offer. DSLRs are just fine. Some of my best friends shoot DSLRs.

jaziey.g

Thanks for the info. I will try the white balance changes. I have been shooting in jpeg for sports thinking it would make the files smaller and the write buffer easier to handle. But sports shots are no good too grainy, or too smooth. I can't tell if I'm missing the focus or it's just the grain (maybe both). I'm thinking I will have to shoot raw compressed. i've been testing out expandable spot and lock on expandable spot.

sbohne

I'm wondering how many people can tell me WHY someone should switch to a mirrorless camera? Yes, they have less moving parts. Yes, the minimize camera shake from mirror slap (which is a minor point). Yes, they enable a body to be SLIGHTLY smaller. But really...how advantageous is this? Are the images sharper? I doubt that you can see the difference with the naked eye.

Canon produced the Canon Pellix back in the 1970's. It employed a pellicle mirror, so the mirror did not move. The viewfinder was about a stop darker than a Canon Ft. Were the images any sharper? Not that I could see. But it piqued people's interest. With flagging DSLR sales, I'm wondering if mirrorless cameras are a marketing ploy once again.

Not saying you should or should not buy a mirrorless camera. Just wondering if you know WHY you are doing it, other than the normal photographer's desire to own the newest, latest, coolest goody to brag about.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I can tell you my reason at least. As I age, I am always looking for something that is lighter. I am planning on a Nikon Z7 as I shoot Nikon, not as a replacement, but as an addition. I plan to trade my D500 for it, but not my D850 or D5. Best of luck.

jaziey.g

gwilliams6 - "I have no problems setting a custom white balance and recalling it on my A7RIII, no matter what other custom settings I have made, it doesnt lock you out from making and utilizing other settings."

I don't think you are understanding me. I'm not talking about individual custom settings. I am referring to Settings A and B where you can load indiv settings then recall A or B at any given time and use those preset settings. The problem, if I use preset A (already configured) in real time and I'm at basketball game today and want to create a custom white balance, I cannot set it and use preset A at the same time. Remember A was created at an earlier time with all my favorite settings for..lets say sports. But custom white balance is a real time setting not to be anticipated. I should be over to update custom WB using A or B.

As for the noise at high ISO it is looking a little worse than my D500 on my computer. I'm using med sized jpg. I open to suggestions on how to improve this.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Most gyms are still lit with mercury vapor lamps. (Some newer installations use metal halide or high-pressure sodium.) These are arc discharge lamps with six very narrow spectral lines...two each in the orange, green, and blue/violet portions of the spectrum. The blue, violet, and green emissions are the strongest. The light "strobes" 120 times per second, in synch with the voltage swings that are natural with alternating current. The result is 120 pulses of light every second, with periods of total (ot meat total) darkness sandwiched between them. In addition, since the various colors are related to different energy levels, not all of the colors come up together each time the lamps relight. So while the color balance can be understood overall, it is in reality constantly changing.

If slower shutter speeds are used (1/60, 1/30, or 1/20), there is a reasonable guarantee that the shutter open interval will capture an overall average of the light output, which can be predicted and adjusted to, especially if your white balance adjustment includes the Green/Magenta axis in addition to the Blue/Yellow axis. But shorter shutter openings (faster shutter speeds) are guaranteed to capture at least some fraction of a lighting cycle, resulting in lighting that is not the same as the overall average. This can affect exposure and can also affect color rendition. And it will be different from one shot to the next. As shutter speed goes higher, the problem worsens, because the fraction of the illumination cycle gets less and less and is more likely to be from different points in the cycle.

I'm currently learning and experimenting with the Flicker Reduction function available in some newer cameras. This function forces shutter opening to coincide with a specific portion of the illumination cycle, improving consistency. I'm still trying to figure out which part of the cycle it synchs to, because that will make a difference when using faster shutter speeds.

Bottom line...it is very likely that there is going to have to be at least some work done in post processing to get this right. And it can be done with JPEGs as well, especially if you get close at the time of exposure. But it may not ever be possible to get it perfect, bwecause even those discharge lights that appear "white" (like metal halide, which are about 2700K) still have a low Color Rendering Index and still make light that varies during each cycle.