In reading about the rowing number of new mirrorless cameras there seems to be a move by some mfgrs to "in-camera-IS." If this is the case is there likely and positive (really negative) impact on lens cost that no longer have IS systems included? Has anyone seen and discussion to this?
Over the last year I have seen growing signs that digital photography is moving toward mirrorless cameras and associated lens systems. I have significant Nikon equipment for my bird and nature photography interests including a 500mm F4 and 300mm F2.8 prime lenses. I have a recently purchased D500 I love and have been saving for a D850 - which I have anticipated buying at during the end of the year sales when I hope to see a modest discount to the long stable initial price.
I have come to the realization that at some point there is likely to be an significant advantage such as size and weight of gear - and even technical innovation leadership - to move to a full mirrorless setup.
I understand that there is an adapter to allow me to continue to use my current lenses with the new Nikon mirrorless cameras...but I am not sure that I would necessarily stay with Nikon if I go mirrorless. Steve Perry's evaluation of the new Nikon mirrorless suggested that they are not yet as capable (insufficient burst mode buffering) as current DSLR offerings for action bird photography. I understand that some of the Sony are of comparable capabilities. A friend has a Sony mirrorless and set of lenses that are significantly smaller and more manageable that my gear.
I know from regularly reading the Forum that there are many very thoughtful and knowledgeable members - and maybe some that have already made this transition. So I would like to ask for your thoughts on which companies currently appear to be the true leaders in mirrorless cameras and lens systems - especially as applicable to bird photography. And more specifically, knowing that the technology will continue to evolve, your thoughts on timing - is it the right time to convert or to move forward with my D850 purchase knowing that there will likely come a clear time to make the switch?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts!
Most of my heavy photography efforts are while traveling. The Geotagging feature seems like something that I might value as I look back at photos going forward.
I'd like to purchase an add-on GPS to my Nikon cameras before a summer trip to Alaska. I would appreciate recommendations. The Nikon GP-1A is the most expensive and has a 3.5 star rating. The Wolverine GEO-35 is less but has a significant cord that seems like it would be a cumbersome problem and is 3 star out of 5. The Aokatec products look interesting with both physically connected and Blue-Tooth units.
In August we will be traveling on an alumni trip to Alaska including Denali NWR, the southeastern coast via boat and an air trip to the Artic Circle. We are very excited about the trip!
We are weight limited and on the size of our luggage so - in order to keep warm and not wear the same close every day just to be able to carry more photo gear I am wrestling with what of my current gear to take vs exchanging or buying something else. I have a just purchased D500 that will be my one camera. I have a Nikon 18-300 & Nikon 12-24, a Tamron 150-600, Sigma 105 macro and lenses I won't take (sigh) are my Nikon 300 and 500 - to big and heavy. My Nikon 18-300 serves well as a macro, so one option to cover everything from macro to landscapes to birds/wildlife is the 18-300 and Tamron 150-600. No further expense required.
I have a travel tripod, but it likely will be a casualty of the limited. May sneak in a mono-pod.
I have been studying reviews of the new Tamron 18-400 with the idea that this would cover the landscape and wildlife which replaces the larger 150-600 for wildlife. I'd use the Sigma for macro work. Additional but reasonable costs for the new Tamron 18-400.
At the core of my research is - will I loose too much sharpness on bird photos with the 18-400 vs 150-600. I've also looked at the Nikon 80-400 as an option for wildlife. It seems to have slightly better sharpness at 400, but is also more costly. If I go with either of these lenses I'd take the Nikon 18-300 for landscape and macro work.
I am hoping for at least a few good bald eagle ops and other likely distant subjects and don't want to be disappointed with the results.
Please share thoughts on my options or propose other options I haven't thought of.