What mirrorless camera to get?

[bdial]

I bought a second-hand Nikon Z-6 a couple of years ago, and like it quite a lot. It plays pretty well with manual focus lenses, and it has a relatively short flange distance, so the lens choices are enormous.

 

[MTGseattle]

I'm in a similar situation. Digital photography has always remained second fiddle for me. I have an Eos 6d mkII, and 3 EF lenses. I always end up in the "either/or" situation. If I decide to head out with digital, my film gear stays home and vice versa. I've been eyeballing the compacts that do nice work and could supplement my film outings without taking up a ton of space.
The Fuji x100 series would be fine for me I think. I really don't want to spend much more than 7-800 though which kicks me back 1 or 2 generations.
There's also the fixed lens of the x100 series and whether I can be happy with that. I did some reading about the Sony a6300 (I think) combined with that silly tiny 16-50mm zoom. Something more serious than my phone, but small enough that I can cram it in with my 8x10 kit.

 

[Hassasin]

I opted for the Fuji-X system for several reasons, looks being one of them. But do keep in mind Fuji has shown a couple of disturbing trends:

• they quickly drop older models from firmware support, even though most new features would have benefitted older models, one can argue which bean counter makes these decisions at Fuji, which makes no difference in brand deterrence factor
• classic camera controls are apparently no longer on high priority, completely dropped from the new H2 (yes, it does have cringy PSAM approach instead), partially dropped from the H1. Yeah, there is space needed for top screen, no matter how use(less) it is by control presence instead, but to be frank these controls are great to have and make camera operation, especially moving to AUTO mode, super easy, yet are in the end hardly a factor in overall experience, but they do look super awesome

I was also one of those, with all the hoopla about manual camera controls, who hoped for having lenses without fly-by-wire manual focus control, by now it is quite clear - not a chance.

I'm sticking to X100T for that "rangefinder" part (maybe waiting for the new X100Z whenever that shows up, with hopes to have some design blunders fixed by then) and have H1 with several lenses. H1 was a "smart" choice away from H2 because it is like near quarter of the price, yet it gives a lot in return. Of course it does not have 40 MP sensor, but I'm quite a bit away from needing that, It is also appreciably more rugged than T series, even if it somewhat chunkier due to larger grip and apparent overall heft. Sensor stabilised mode helped with the choice, so I can play with some Canon FD lenses.

As for your APS concerns? Crop factor is really just a "crop factor", the term is vastly overused and mostly placed with a wrong meaning. It's only valid whenever one wants to procrastinate. I don't even see how anyone needs to be concerned about it, except in a who-has-the-last-word discussion. In the end it's only about lens choice, like in any format for any given situation.

 

[xkaes]

I just checked -- out of curiosity. Sony's first full-frame mirrorless camera was the A7 in 2013 -- 24MP. The bodies are going for $200-300. They've had several similar models over the last ten years -- which probably cost more.

 

[L Gebhardt]

As for your APS concerns? Crop factor is really just a "crop factor", the term is vastly overused and mostly placed with a wrong meaning. It's only valid whenever one wants to procrastinate. I don't even see how anyone needs to be concerned about it, except in a who-has-the-last-word discussion. In the end it's only about lens choice, like in any format for any given situation.

As you say it's about lens choice. When I was using DX Nikons the crop factor was an issue when adapting lenses. I could use a 24mm as a 36mm, but there was no reasonable 16mm to fill the role the 24mm would on FF. Nikon was really bad about releasing DX primes. Fuji is great that way, but it does limit your wide choices with adapted lenses.

But having bought a few FF Sony bodies I've mostly stopped adapting lenses since the new Sony lenses are just so much better in almost every way than the ones I was adapting.

 

[Paul Howell]

I might get an A7, it would a real upgrade from my A3000. Not sure how much I would use it.

 

[xkaes]

As you say it's about lens choice. When I was using DX Nikons the crop factor was an issue when adapting lenses. I could use a 24mm as a 36mm, but there was no reasonable 16mm to fill the role the 24mm would on FF. Nikon was really bad about releasing DX primes. Fuji is great that way, but it does limit your wide choices with adapted lenses.

My thoughts exactly. "Crop factor" is not an important factor if you are talking long lenses, but if you like really wide lenses, it's a different ball game.

But having bought a few FF Sony bodies I've mostly stopped adapting lenses since the new Sony lenses are just so much better in almost every way than the ones I was adapting.

Almost, except for PRICE!!! I only have one "real" Sony lens -- which is really just a rebadged Maxxum lens. Sony did the same thing with several of Minolta's Maxxum flashes. Sony sold the exact same units -- with the Sony label, of course -- and they sell for 3-4 times as much as the exact same Minolta models. Go figure.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If you want to adapt lenses then Sony is the biggest bang for your buck. I use Canon autofocus lenses with full functionality on mine with a Sigma MC-11 adapter, plus Leica and Contax lenses through regular adapters. Pretty much any lens can adapt to it.

That said, if I were going to get a walk around digital camera and wasn't going to adapt lenses I'd get a Fuji.

 

[Hassasin]

Fuji has gone down to 8mm lens, going wide isn't an issue at all, if that is so important.

 

[xkaes]

Fuji has gone down to 8mm lens, going wide isn't an issue at all, if that is so important.

It is if you want to use your existing full-frame lenses on an APS digital -- which is what the OP is asking about.

 

[Paul Howell]

Maybe i would use a MF long lens for wildlife with a tripod don't see shooting action such as sports with a MF lens on a digital body. I think you need a full frame for wide and normal lens for landscape and the like maybe a short tele for portutate but not anything longer than a 100. Question does the A7 allow for shooting in cropped mode? Issue in my mind is that if you have 24MP sensor and shoot cropped you are shooting 12MP.

 

[xkaes]

I'm confident that the A7 has an APS setting, since it was made when Sony was making mostly APS cameras and lenses (2013). On my Sony full-frame cameras, they automatically resets to APS mode if an APS lens is attached (which can be over-ridden).

You're right, the MP is decreased, of course, to about 11MP -- but you get twice as many pictures on a card!!!

Sony just released its latest APS camera -- the A6700 -- with an e-mount, of course. $1400 for the body -- with every feature you never imagined/wanted/need.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have to check my A900 to see if has a cropped mode, if it does I have never used it.

 

[xkaes]

The a900 & a850 have APS mode in the menu -- but it automatically turns on when an APS lens is attached.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Maybe i would use a MF long lens for wildlife with a tripod don't see shooting action such as sports with a MF lens on a digital body. I think you need a full frame for wide and normal lens for landscape and the like maybe a short tele for portutate but not anything longer than a 100. Question does the A7 allow for shooting in cropped mode? Issue in my mind is that if you have 24MP sensor and shoot cropped you are shooting 12MP.

The A7R3 and later have a DX cropped mode. I think the same is true for all the A7 lineup. It’s very useful for wildlife where you know you will be cropping anyway.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use both an A700 and A77II for wildlife, the A7II for sports, the A900 mostly for landscapes. I've been considering an A99II as the used prices are coming down, there something to be said for an A7 to replace the A900. Problem is that I just like EVFs, I put up with the A77II, I still tend to grade the A700, as old as it is.

 

[Duceman]

I'm confident that the A7 has an APS setting, since it was made when Sony was making mostly APS cameras and lenses (2013). On my Sony full-frame cameras, they automatically resets to APS mode if an APS lens is attached (which can be over-ridden).

You're right, the MP is decreased, of course, to about 11MP -- but you get twice as many pictures on a card!!!

Sony just released its latest APS camera -- the A6700 -- with an e-mount, of course. $1400 for the body -- with every feature you never imagined/wanted/need.

View attachment 349039

This really is the body style I’m looking for. No need for the central “bump” when the viewing screen is all that is needed. I recall (several years ago) looking through my friend’s Canon R viewfinder, and it was just a small viewer screen, and thinking, WTH is this?

The fact of the matter is that my iPhone takes extraordinarily good pictures, for something that I have in my pocket all the time. In that regard, if I am going for something digital, I do not want something that is overly bulky; the lens should be the bulkiest part.

 

[JWMster]

Sony makes some great cameras. I took a digital journey, started with a Fuji, switched to a series of Sony cameras, then to Nikon, and finally back to Fuji. I have an XT4 and a GFX50R. Fuji makes fabulous cameras. There was a time where you could make the case that APS cameras weren't good, and for many, that's still the case. But for Fuji, APS is there bread and butter and receives 1st class treatment that can deliver the goods. Most of the others DO reserve that for the Full Frame.

But was true more a decade ago is a difficult case to make today. I'd say that there's a solid case to be made that the differences are less than the used to be in reality but remain more so in our heads. This can be a spendy problem. Witness my GFX which in many ways FullFrame has caught up to. What few full frames can catch up to relative to the GFX with though is the build quality, how it handles and the glass, and how larger sensor pixels respond to light. Everything about GFX is still made in Japan and it literally shows and feels that good. Tangible effect in the pictures is hard to gauge, BUT the one pickup from a bigger sensor is dynamic range that just blows most away IMHO. Yet most of the time, I don't really need that.... so I'm in the process of thinning the GFX lens stable.

That said, I shoot the XT4 for events 'cause it's faster working and lighter and easier to get around. No one notices me. Pull out the GFX and I'm immediately "a photographer" because of the big honking gear. And that's not necessarily a positive if you know what I mean.... as it attracts attention and hams and shyness that a smaller rig does not. And if you're a wildlife photographer, even smaller makes more sense as you can pack more MM equivalence in a given lens size and weight together with all the farther reach that brings.

All that said, there's a lot folks who love their Sony's. I felt it was a big step up at the time. But the build quality.... I also saw my sensors tend to slide off to the side... and that was a known issues at the time. I'm sure that's been addressed and I do see a lot of great photographer's using this gear. If it fits, go there. There's a huge crowd, so plenty of compatriots.

My recommendation is DO NOT BUY THE BUZZ. Buy what works for you for the sort of images you want. Consider that if you like B&W, there's now even a Pentax Monochrome, so you don't HAVE TO BREAK the bank. Good choices abound and you're not facing only one of a kinds (hear me Leica Monochrome - competition at last!). But don't worry about the sensors today: They're all pretty excellent and you'll see a lot produce Canon 5D-type quality. Even APS has great image quality... all I need most of the time even at 6400 ISO in low lit churches where flash is forbidden. Yet Canon tilt shift lenses are pretty amazing... and not to be run away from.. in fact they make me jealous. Remember that you, your compositions and exposures and your post processing matter more than the camera. Over 10 years ago when I shot Fuji's early X gen cameras - not nearly as good as today's, their glass was still wonderful, and printed big (16X24) still looked beautiful enough for Nikon D810 shooters to say nice things.... and not just 'cause they were nice, gentle (complimentary) folk trying to make me feel good. Yes, they'd tried to tell me "these image would have been EVEN better with a D810 or so". But the truth today is less compelling.

Get what fits you and your needs, and to paraphrase Admiral Farragut. "Damn the advertisers, critics and negative naysayers in my (your) head, full speed ahead!" Keep making some great images!

 

[xkaes]

The fact of the matter is that my iPhone takes extraordinarily good pictures, for something that I have in my pocket all the time. In that regard, if I am going for something digital, I do not want something that is overly bulky; the lens should be the bulkiest part.

This is a very important decision point -- and it's different for everyone. Lots of people like small and light, for obvious reasons. I'm so used to large, heavy 35mm SLRs that I like DSLRs, and have no use for EFVs. And there are a ton of camera in the middle. The same personal decision/preference applies to cars, computers, and most everything else.

 

[Cholentpot]

This is a very important decision point -- and it's different for everyone. Lots of people like small and light, for obvious reasons. I'm so used to large, heavy 35mm SLRs that I like DSLRs, and have no use for EFVs. And there are a ton of camera in the middle. The same personal decision/preference applies to cars, computers, and most everything else.

The manufacturers decided that DSLRs are dead and pushed everyone to move on from them. The mirrorless cameras are nice but not quite up to snuff with the flappy mirror cameras. Most of my pro buddies either switched back from mirrorless back to mirror or never switched. I'll give it a few more generations before I try it out again.

 

[xkaes]

I don't envy the "dust" problems that mirrorless camera users have to deal with, and for some strange reason I like picking up a camera and seeing what the lens sees -- WITHOUT having to turn it ON.

 

[negativefunk]

I shoot mostly film now, but I also got a mirrorless, the fujifilm X-T2. I did not have a digital camera since like a pentax from 2007/2008, and I was blown away by the improvements. They are very good tools indeed. I can't recommend it vs another system but I am really happy with it.

I have three primes - 16/23/35mm. They are all weather resistant, the whole package is tiny and not much expensive and the quality is really high. For low/very low light is also a godsend.
I liked what I saw about the x-t5 but I can't see the need for an upgrade (in my case .

 

[L Gebhardt]

The manufacturers decided that DSLRs are dead and pushed everyone to move on from them. The mirrorless cameras are nice but not quite up to snuff with the flappy mirror cameras. Most of my pro buddies either switched back from mirrorless back to mirror or never switched. I'll give it a few more generations before I try it out again.

As a counterpoint I would never go back to a DSLR from mirrorless. The metering and focus is much more accurate with the sensor seeing the lens during composition. The only thing I miss about the DSLRs was the ability to watch through the viewfinder without using any battery power, but with today’s cameras the battery life is more than good enough.

 

[Cholentpot]

As a counterpoint I would never go back to a DSLR from mirrorless. The metering and focus is much more accurate with the sensor seeing the lens during composition. The only thing I miss about the DSLRs was the ability to watch through the viewfinder without using any battery power, but with today’s cameras the battery life is more than good enough.

Point taken. Most of my work though is very much reliant on that viewfinder. If I did more studio work I can see mirrorless being a better option.

 

[Duceman]

This is a very important decision point -- and it's different for everyone. Lots of people like small and light, for obvious reasons. I'm so used to large, heavy 35mm SLRs that I like DSLRs, and have no use for EFVs. And there are a ton of camera in the middle. The same personal decision/preference applies to cars, computers, and most everything else.

I'm used to large, heavy cameras as well. Main reason why I'm looking for something small in this digital camera is that it will most likely be used secondary to my film cameras. Another camera thrown into the bag, that sort of thing. And I'm purely a hobbyist... don't do work for clients, etc.

If anything, my little search here has reminded me why I sort of gave up on digital cameras years ago... it seemed every month there was something "better and greater," and it just got tiring trying to keep up with it all. Doesn't appear to have changed. But... these are all first-world problems.