Sony / Fuji Mirrorless or Nikon D750/810 or stay DX?
Discussion
Imagine you're in the situation where you want to upgrade from your D5000 to something a bit newer & shinier.
I've used SLR since film days - starting with a F55, then to digital with an entry level 3xxx and then up to a 5xxx.
These days i'm shooting more or less only landscapes or people - son & wife.
Issues I have with current kit - low light performance isn't great, high ISO is noisy, and..... i'd like to upgrade
let's not over exaggerate - i'm a keen amateur and quite often not a very good one 
I'm always used Nikon so am familiar with the brand & how it works etc - several freidns have got a 750 and I find it an exceptionally good piece of kit. Not tried an 810 and think it may be overkill over a 750.
Or stay DX with a 7500 - although little price difference to the full frame.
Alternatively - try something completely new and go mirrorless.......
Either a A7Rii or a not full frame X-T2. (Could cope with the X-T20 but have heard first hand awful stories about the lack of weather sealing)
Lens wise - at present I don't own but have access to some of the nicer Nikon items- 24-70 & 70-200 2.8's - the stuff i own is all pretty much bog standard entry level which would be worth little in resale.
I would be tempted to wait for Nikon mirrorless but I assume it's going to be a small fortune when / if it's eventually confirmed.
Bit of a ramble really but i'm trying to decide which direction I want to go......
I've used SLR since film days - starting with a F55, then to digital with an entry level 3xxx and then up to a 5xxx.
These days i'm shooting more or less only landscapes or people - son & wife.
Issues I have with current kit - low light performance isn't great, high ISO is noisy, and..... i'd like to upgrade
let's not over exaggerate - i'm a keen amateur and quite often not a very good one I'm always used Nikon so am familiar with the brand & how it works etc - several freidns have got a 750 and I find it an exceptionally good piece of kit. Not tried an 810 and think it may be overkill over a 750.
Or stay DX with a 7500 - although little price difference to the full frame.
Alternatively - try something completely new and go mirrorless.......
Either a A7Rii or a not full frame X-T2. (Could cope with the X-T20 but have heard first hand awful stories about the lack of weather sealing)
Lens wise - at present I don't own but have access to some of the nicer Nikon items- 24-70 & 70-200 2.8's - the stuff i own is all pretty much bog standard entry level which would be worth little in resale.
I would be tempted to wait for Nikon mirrorless but I assume it's going to be a small fortune when / if it's eventually confirmed.
Bit of a ramble really but i'm trying to decide which direction I want to go......
I'm in exactly the same position OP, I really like the D750, I have the D5100 at present but not a huge investment in lens.
The only thing the D750 doesn't do is sync at 1/8000 s, it maxes at 1/4000 sec but realistically I'm not sure when I would need that.
Rumours suggest that Nikon are replacing it next year so I'm not in any rush.
I looked casually at the Sony too, but I'm struggling to see huge advantages in mirrorless? I've never tried one so am a bit ignorant of any advantages/disadvantages other than size and battery life?
I understand Sony glass is more expensive though so that would put me off and if you have access to those superb lens then for me I'd stay Nikon in absence of any huge benefits of mirrorless.
The only thing the D750 doesn't do is sync at 1/8000 s, it maxes at 1/4000 sec but realistically I'm not sure when I would need that.
Rumours suggest that Nikon are replacing it next year so I'm not in any rush.
I looked casually at the Sony too, but I'm struggling to see huge advantages in mirrorless? I've never tried one so am a bit ignorant of any advantages/disadvantages other than size and battery life?
I understand Sony glass is more expensive though so that would put me off and if you have access to those superb lens then for me I'd stay Nikon in absence of any huge benefits of mirrorless.
For me - the only advantage really is size & convenience.
750 with the 70-200 weigh's the same as a small elephant.
Which is fine when i'm going out just for the purpose of getting some images, however when i'm on a family day trip - I can see the advantage of having a little mirrorless thing that slips inside a pocket.
750 with the 70-200 weigh's the same as a small elephant.
Which is fine when i'm going out just for the purpose of getting some images, however when i'm on a family day trip - I can see the advantage of having a little mirrorless thing that slips inside a pocket.
Dan_1981 said:
750 with the 70-200 weigh's the same as a small elephant.
You should try a D810 with a battery grip full of AA Eneloops and a Nikkor 200-500 fitted - not what you would call "wieldy"....You've identified one of the issues with FF - they generally aren't very portable - fine when you're on a photography day out, but simply not practical on most other days out.
I thought about a small mirrorless for in my pocket, but then realised I rarely, if ever go out somewhere where photography is a secondary consideration - I'm either out to get photos (in which case, I'll have most or all of my kit with me), or out to do something else (in which case the camera stays at home). The closest I've had was an entire day on foot round London for photography, where portability was obviously a consideration. I just took a small bag and a couple of lenses
If you can separate your activity as cleanly as this, a full-frame should make a huge difference. I moved from a D5200 with a Sigma 50-500 to a D810 with a decent range of Nikon glass and it transformed the quality of my images.
That said, at the same time, my eldest son had a D7100 and some fairly average lenses, but his photos were generally better than mine - so, don't lose sight of the fact that the biggest gains in IQ are probably down to the operator, not the kit
Just a final point - I took a punt on a BlackRapid strap to aid portability - not cheap, but it has made a significant difference to the ease of carrying a full-frame body and lens, even with a 500mm zoom fitted - WAY better than any OE neck-strap
Dan_1981 said:
For me - the only advantage really is size & convenience.
that... also, with mirrorless it can be as small or as large a setup as you like, but with DSLR its always going to be fairly large..as for advantages, I like focus peaking and all the added extras the EVF brings.. plus the AF on my A6300 is quite excellent.. plus it fits in my pocket..
I went from a 5D mk iii to a Fujifilm X-T20 and a selection of prime lenses. I sold the Canon body plus 3 'L' lenses on the local eBay equivalent and managed to get pretty much everything I wanted with the proceeds so it ended up being no extra cost.
I use the camera for landscapes mainly, often hiking up mountains in the night to get early light. I can get all my kit (body, 5 lenses, filters etc) in a Hadley small. In truth I usually throw it in a rucksack so I can take additional clothes, coffee etc. The much smaller travel tripod and hiking poles go on the side.
In terms of image quality I really can't tell the difference with the Canon, certainly not when looking at prints. The Fujinon lenses are amazing. I use 2 of my old Carl Zeiss / Contax G lenses also on the body with an adapter and the Fuji lenses probably are better.
For me the difference in weight is amazing. It really means I take my camera, and go out, far more often since getting the camera. I probably have 10x more photos a month. I can also put on the 27mm pancake lens and put the camera in my coat pocket. When doing a 1300m climb to get some images weight really matters.
I have had absolutely no problem with the weather sealing. This morning I was out in -12 without any problem. The iPhone gave up with the cold. I took the view that the price saving with the X-T2 was self-insurance just in case. The X-T2 is quite a bit bigger (but I'd like the bigger viewfinder).
I suspect low light performance could be better with the 5D but I tend to be on a tripod on long exposures instead of bumping up the ISO.
I use the camera for landscapes mainly, often hiking up mountains in the night to get early light. I can get all my kit (body, 5 lenses, filters etc) in a Hadley small. In truth I usually throw it in a rucksack so I can take additional clothes, coffee etc. The much smaller travel tripod and hiking poles go on the side.
In terms of image quality I really can't tell the difference with the Canon, certainly not when looking at prints. The Fujinon lenses are amazing. I use 2 of my old Carl Zeiss / Contax G lenses also on the body with an adapter and the Fuji lenses probably are better.
For me the difference in weight is amazing. It really means I take my camera, and go out, far more often since getting the camera. I probably have 10x more photos a month. I can also put on the 27mm pancake lens and put the camera in my coat pocket. When doing a 1300m climb to get some images weight really matters.
I have had absolutely no problem with the weather sealing. This morning I was out in -12 without any problem. The iPhone gave up with the cold. I took the view that the price saving with the X-T2 was self-insurance just in case. The X-T2 is quite a bit bigger (but I'd like the bigger viewfinder).
I suspect low light performance could be better with the 5D but I tend to be on a tripod on long exposures instead of bumping up the ISO.
I've just gone from D300 to D500, mainly for sports/wildlife. Next I'll be replacing my trusty old 50-500 with either a nikon 80-400 or possibly one of the 150-600s.
I did look at the pana GH-5 with 100-400, as my dad wanted a lower weight option and I might get that as well, but it is a much worse option for decent AF stills,eve if it is a fantastic video machine.
D500 feels almost identical to the D300 handling wise, it's AF is much much better as is it's iso performance, which both are key in early morning/evening safari stuff when light is pretty low. So far I'm very happy with the D500
I did look at the pana GH-5 with 100-400, as my dad wanted a lower weight option and I might get that as well, but it is a much worse option for decent AF stills,eve if it is a fantastic video machine.
D500 feels almost identical to the D300 handling wise, it's AF is much much better as is it's iso performance, which both are key in early morning/evening safari stuff when light is pretty low. So far I'm very happy with the D500
Simpo Two said:
To make the change from DX to FX really worthwhile you'd need to change your lenses too. Otherwise it's like buying a fancy valve amplifier but keeping your Tesco Value speakers...
Yup - understand that. This won't be a short term investment.
And I don't know why but I feel like the Nikon FF stuff is a more lasting investment - silly it seems but the mirrorless ones just seem to be superceeded or replaced every year.
I know the old one will last but.....
Not an accurate thought I know but it's a gut feel.
I'd be tempted to look at the Sony A6500.
I know it's not full frame, but the size/weight of the full frame Sony mirrorless bodies and full frame lenses isn't much less than a full frame DSLR. I guess it depends how important size/weight is to you.
Wife has a D750 and I have a Sony A6000. When we only take one camera, we always take the mirrorless.
I know it's not full frame, but the size/weight of the full frame Sony mirrorless bodies and full frame lenses isn't much less than a full frame DSLR. I guess it depends how important size/weight is to you.
Wife has a D750 and I have a Sony A6000. When we only take one camera, we always take the mirrorless.
Get an A7 mk2 or a7r mk2
The iq is fantastic, and you can set it up to be small and lightweight ( with say 35/2.8 ) or if you throw on a grip and 70-200/2.8 its chunky but still a little lighter than the slr equivalent.
Ive found the AF on my a7r2 with adapted canon lenses great, with sony lenses and the eye af thing its supposed to be superb.
The iq is fantastic, and you can set it up to be small and lightweight ( with say 35/2.8 ) or if you throw on a grip and 70-200/2.8 its chunky but still a little lighter than the slr equivalent.
Ive found the AF on my a7r2 with adapted canon lenses great, with sony lenses and the eye af thing its supposed to be superb.
I’ve gone D750 > XT2 > a7RII in the past couple of years.
All are great and you can’t go far wrong owning any of them. I’ve personally settled on the a7RII which for me is pretty much the best compromise between weight, size and performance. I’m a wedding photographer but also shoot plenty of my toddler and various other things, I’ve found Eye AF alone to be a complete game changer for how I shoot people.
Personally I think mirrorless is about way more than the size/weight thing (which stems from Micro 4/3 in the early days). Full AF through the LCD screen, data overlays, WYSIWYG and image review in the EVF, accurate AF out of the box with no need for micro adjustment etc and completely silent electronic shutters when needed.
All are great and you can’t go far wrong owning any of them. I’ve personally settled on the a7RII which for me is pretty much the best compromise between weight, size and performance. I’m a wedding photographer but also shoot plenty of my toddler and various other things, I’ve found Eye AF alone to be a complete game changer for how I shoot people.
Personally I think mirrorless is about way more than the size/weight thing (which stems from Micro 4/3 in the early days). Full AF through the LCD screen, data overlays, WYSIWYG and image review in the EVF, accurate AF out of the box with no need for micro adjustment etc and completely silent electronic shutters when needed.
I'm in a similar position, currently have a D40X, which really is getting on a bit. It does the job, but I find I'm limited by its low light capabilities and most of the shots I like taking are in low light. (Astro, weddings etc)
Problem I have is I really don't know what way to go. I've been looking at the D7200 which seems a good one worth upgrading to.
I'm also wanting a good lens for astrophotography so don't want to blow the budget completely
Problem I have is I really don't know what way to go. I've been looking at the D7200 which seems a good one worth upgrading to.
I'm also wanting a good lens for astrophotography so don't want to blow the budget completely
[quote=justin220]I'm in a similar position, currently have a D40X, which really is getting on a bit. It does the job, but I find I'm limited by its low light capabilities and most of the shots I like taking are in low light. (Astro, weddings etc)
Problem I have is I really don't know what way to go. I've been looking at the D7200 which seems a good one worth upgrading to.
Fuji X-T1?
https://www.lonelyspeck.com/fujifilm-x-t1-astropho...
Problem I have is I really don't know what way to go. I've been looking at the D7200 which seems a good one worth upgrading to.
Fuji X-T1?
https://www.lonelyspeck.com/fujifilm-x-t1-astropho...
Interesting reading this. I'm a bit fed up of the weight of my Nikon D3 and am eyeing a change. Sony FE stuff is coming on fast and has really caught my interest but I can't afford an A9 or A7Riii and I'm concerned that the others won't work for me in terms of AF for motorsport and mental children. Would like to try one though. Also a little taken back by how much a good lens line up would cost me. New lenses seem similar or more than Nikon equivalents but there is no huge back catalogue of used options avaialble. It makes a massive difference in overall costs to me. Going to keep an eye on Sony. Could see myself making the jump at some point.
Was dead set on an X-T2. Love the Fuji bodies and controls. Viewfinder is superb and AF seems to have come of age. It has to be said as well that some of the Fuji lenses are just gorgeous. What is holding me back is that for the cost of set of lenses I'd want I could actually have a set of FX lenses that would be equivalent or better but the system would work out cheaper. Trouble is, it would also weigh a tonne, and around we go again! Not sure what I'll do, but it's great to have such an amazing choice now.
Was dead set on an X-T2. Love the Fuji bodies and controls. Viewfinder is superb and AF seems to have come of age. It has to be said as well that some of the Fuji lenses are just gorgeous. What is holding me back is that for the cost of set of lenses I'd want I could actually have a set of FX lenses that would be equivalent or better but the system would work out cheaper. Trouble is, it would also weigh a tonne, and around we go again! Not sure what I'll do, but it's great to have such an amazing choice now.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff