Worth switching to mirrorless?
Discussion
Heres Johnny said:
I'm sure I heard (or heard a rumour) Nikon were bringing a new mount out for their Mirrorless - and while there might be converters etc I'm sure they'll not be as good as native lens. That being the case, if you're changing, then change for one that takes your fancy and don't be worried about lens retention. But then I'd also wait until the reviews are out for the new Nikon cameras.
The D500 is top of the crop so any change is going to be relatively marginal or more likely influenced by any new lens you buy. I went D850 with a Tamron F2.8 zoom after labouring over this decision, moving from a D7000 and I'm more than happy.
"top of the crop" ha. Like what you did there The D500 is top of the crop so any change is going to be relatively marginal or more likely influenced by any new lens you buy. I went D850 with a Tamron F2.8 zoom after labouring over this decision, moving from a D7000 and I'm more than happy.
Re the Nikon mirrorless, yes they're releasing one later this month and will also be releasing a converter but it'll no doubt cost the earth and looking at my range of lenses they're either DX or the focal ranges are more suited to DX so I'd be buying new lenses anyway
Simpo Two said:
Punters like size. If they're paying good money for a professional videographer or photographer, they expect to see a big camera. Bigger that theirs.
Mirrorless has killed that, I hope. Certainly for weddings in my experience and certainly in the UK and Asia. It might still be true in the US where mirrorless adoption has been slower than elsewhere. The vast majority of guests use phones now, so even a small mirrorless camera is 'bigger than theirs'!People employ me to be discreet, not to be swinging a big white 70-200 around trying to capture natural moments. The generally smaller size, quiet (and silent) shutters and flippy LCDs are game changers for documentary style wedding photography.
Two of the busiest UK wedding photographers I know switched to Fuji some time ago, and not even the big lenses, but the tiny 23/56 primes. I would imagine most people who have attended a wedding in the past year or two will have experienced photographers with very discreet kit.
I've only shot 50 weddings so far myself but only one potential client asked about specific gear, and I think only because it was part of a (bizarre) default list of questions to ask in a magazine. What she did with that info I have no idea, but I said Fuji and she still booked me. What has been of interest to many has been the silent shutter (and lack of flash), as many have experienced weddings where it sounds like a press conference during the ceremony. Also, vicars LOVE silent shutters.
ukaskew said:
Simpo Two said:
Punters like size. If they're paying good money for a professional videographer or photographer, they expect to see a big camera. Bigger that theirs.
Mirrorless has killed that, I hope. Certainly for weddings in my experience and certainly in the UK and Asia. It might still be true in the US where mirrorless adoption has been slower than elsewhere. The vast majority of guests use phones now, so even a small mirrorless camera is 'bigger than theirs'!People employ me to be discreet, not to be swinging a big white 70-200 around trying to capture natural moments. The generally smaller size, quiet (and silent) shutters and flippy LCDs are game changers for documentary style wedding photography.
Two of the busiest UK wedding photographers I know switched to Fuji some time ago, and not even the big lenses, but the tiny 23/56 primes. I would imagine most people who have attended a wedding in the past year or two will have experienced photographers with very discreet kit.
I've only shot 50 weddings so far myself but only one potential client asked about specific gear, and I think only because it was part of a (bizarre) default list of questions to ask in a magazine. What she did with that info I have no idea, but I said Fuji and she still booked me. What has been of interest to many has been the silent shutter (and lack of flash), as many have experienced weddings where it sounds like a press conference during the ceremony. Also, vicars LOVE silent shutters.
I bought (a well used) 5D MKIII off a very well know photographer who does a lot of work around the world and he's switched to Fuji.
Simpo Two said:
Punters like size. ………….
……….
Roll forward 20 years to the wedding stills market: 'Wow that's a big camera, I bet that was expensive'. Bingo. ………... but point is - there are times when size matters
But at that point when you're seen at the wedding with your big camera, it's too late - you've already got the job.……….
Roll forward 20 years to the wedding stills market: 'Wow that's a big camera, I bet that was expensive'. Bingo. ………... but point is - there are times when size matters
When I was looking for a wedding 'tog to cover my son's wedding,
I looked at their portfolios and judged them by their current end product.
As far as I remember none of their websites stated that
'my camera is bigger than …..'
.Edited by Elderly on Sunday 19th August 10:11
ukaskew said:
The vast majority of guests use phones now, so even a small mirrorless camera is 'bigger than theirs'!
Yes, all guests have phones. But in any wedding crowd there will always be some what I termed 'Uncle Phils' with their DSLRs who love to collar you and talk about apertures. I liked them and was always happy to share my knowledge; they made the day more interesting. Whilst it was a major factor in my work that I blended in with the guests, having the biggest camera gets you to the front of the queue because even shooting reportage, sometimes you have to take charge a little and it helps if people know who the tog is.ukaskew said:
People employ me to be discreet, not to be swinging a big white 70-200 around trying to capture natural moments. The generally smaller size, quiet (and silent) shutters and flippy LCDs are game changers for documentary style wedding photography.
People employed me to be discreet too. If you're good at being discreet a 70-200 is fine - though granted mine wasn't white. ukaskew said:
I've only shot 50 weddings so far myself
I've shot many more than that, all reportage, all discreet, and all with DSLRs. There is more to reportage than having a little camera. ukaskew said:
What has been of interest to many has been the silent shutter (and lack of flash), as many have experienced weddings where it sounds like a press conference during the ceremony. Also, vicars LOVE silent shutters.
Well I reckon I've taken about 80,000 photos at weddings, and nobody ever complained about or even mentioned the shutter. 'Lack of flash' is of course nothing to do with the debate; you can shoot ambient with a DSLR if you wish (or if flash is too difficult lol).You have a small quiet camera and use it as a selling point. That's fair enough, so would I in your shoes. But it's not actually necessary
Elderly said:
When I was looking for a wedding 'tog to cover my son's wedding,
I looked at their portfolios and judged them by their current end product.
As far as I remember none of their websites stated that
'my camera is bigger than …..'.
Neither did mine I looked at their portfolios and judged them by their current end product.
As far as I remember none of their websites stated that
'my camera is bigger than …..'
. Choose by the results and the person.Elderly said:
Simpo Two said:
Punters like size. ………….
……….
Roll forward 20 years to the wedding stills market: 'Wow that's a big camera, I bet that was expensive'. Bingo. ………... but point is - there are times when size matters
But at that point when you're seen at the wedding with your big camera, it's too late - you've already got the job.……….
Roll forward 20 years to the wedding stills market: 'Wow that's a big camera, I bet that was expensive'. Bingo. ………... but point is - there are times when size matters
When I was looking for a wedding 'tog to cover my son's wedding,
I looked at their portfolios and judged them by their current end product.
As far as I remember none of their websites stated that
'my camera is bigger than …..'
.Edited by Elderly on Sunday 19th August 10:11
However, I did a christening a couple months back and I got booked for another (before the baby is even born!) based entirely on the size of the 70-200 f2.8 lens on my Sony A7iii.
The last family shoot I did the father asked me about the equipment I was using, especially the 10 frames per second when I was shooting his daughter running towards me, but that’s unusual I’ve found.
From my limited experience professionally, the size of the equipment does equate to a perception of “knowing what you doing” in the mind of the client, most of them anyway!
steveatesh said:
The last family shoot I did the father asked me about the equipment I was using, especially the 10 frames per second when I was shooting his daughter running towards me, but that’s unusual I’ve found.
More importantly - were any in focus? Focus modes can be bewildering, and I have yet to see 'Headlong Charging Brat' mode Simpo Two said:
More importantly - were any in focus? Focus modes can be bewildering, and I have yet to see 'Headlong Charging Brat' mode
Eye focus did it Simpo, not sure how it would do with Usain Bolt mind! Seriously the hardest part was that after a few steps she kept dropping her face to look at the ground and the camera lost focus, but would regain it when she looked up again.
As I read in a review about the camera, it’s almost cheating
Not Ideal said:
Z7 & Z6 announced. 45.7 and 24.5 megapixel sensors respectively. $4000 for the Z7.
That's with the 24-70mm lens.I have to say that the $2000 launch price for the Z6 seems rather reasonable compared to …..?
ETA Of course in rip-off Britain it's £2000
Edited by Elderly on Thursday 23 August 09:50
According to dpreview - "In on and off-record conversations with Nikon over the years, one thing has always been clear - the company did not feel comfortable replacing optical viewfinders with electronic versions until it could guarantee a truly comparable shooting experience. It's reassuring, then, that the Z 7 offers one of the best electronic viewfinders we've ever seen."
That's reassuring.
Along with the full frame 4K video and decent HDMI out, it's got the features my D500 lacks but without the size/weight penalty of the D850.
So, for me, a Z7 alongside my D500 would cover all possibilities.
Need to find one and if it is that good, I'll probably get it.
That's reassuring.
Along with the full frame 4K video and decent HDMI out, it's got the features my D500 lacks but without the size/weight penalty of the D850.
So, for me, a Z7 alongside my D500 would cover all possibilities.
Need to find one and if it is that good, I'll probably get it.
Edited by FurtiveFreddy on Thursday 23 August 10:05
I've spent the morning reading about this and weighing it against the Sony as best I can with the limited reviews. The things that stand out to me are:
Battery life doesn't sound great (330 shots per charge)
Single memory card slot
No eye AF.
The one of those most likely to be a deal breaker for me is the lack of eye AF, I mainly shoot portraits so that feature is one I'd really like to try. I know many will be put off by the single card slot but I could live with that.
Price wise it's £2k body only which is more than the Sony but with the lens adaptor more lenses will be available so I suspect compiling a decent selection of lenses will be a bit cheaper than doing the same with Sony.
The 24-70 lens sounds like a poor deal tho : £599 for an f4! If it was a 2.8 I'd understand it but f4!
On balance I think I'll probably still jump ship to Sony, once my D500 sells.
Battery life doesn't sound great (330 shots per charge)
Single memory card slot
No eye AF.
The one of those most likely to be a deal breaker for me is the lack of eye AF, I mainly shoot portraits so that feature is one I'd really like to try. I know many will be put off by the single card slot but I could live with that.
Price wise it's £2k body only which is more than the Sony but with the lens adaptor more lenses will be available so I suspect compiling a decent selection of lenses will be a bit cheaper than doing the same with Sony.
The 24-70 lens sounds like a poor deal tho : £599 for an f4! If it was a 2.8 I'd understand it but f4!
On balance I think I'll probably still jump ship to Sony, once my D500 sells.
I'm not going to defend those observations even though I'm a Nikon fanboi. They're completely fair.
Battery life is shockingly bad on some Nikon models. Try shooting 4k video on a D500 and you'll know.
Never used eye focus myself, but I don't shoot much content which would need it, so focus peaking will be fine for me.
Lenses are an interesting one as I expected more native lenses to be available at launch, but at least I can use my existing lenses so I'd probably get it with a prime and wait for more to be announced.
I still have a D1 here, so not afraid of being an early adopter. I had very few problems with that and it paid for itself the fist time I used it on a job.
Horses for courses, as always, but it does tick a lot of boxes for me.
Battery life is shockingly bad on some Nikon models. Try shooting 4k video on a D500 and you'll know.
Never used eye focus myself, but I don't shoot much content which would need it, so focus peaking will be fine for me.
Lenses are an interesting one as I expected more native lenses to be available at launch, but at least I can use my existing lenses so I'd probably get it with a prime and wait for more to be announced.
I still have a D1 here, so not afraid of being an early adopter. I had very few problems with that and it paid for itself the fist time I used it on a job.
Horses for courses, as always, but it does tick a lot of boxes for me.
Yeah the battery life for video on the D500 is pretty poor but I rarely shoot video. Battery life for stills is fine though. I'd also have no qualms with being an early adopter: I got my D200 on day 1 and its been faultless. Likewise my D500.
I'll give it some thought, I've been using Nikon so long it'll be a wrench to change.
I'll give it some thought, I've been using Nikon so long it'll be a wrench to change.
Battery life on mirrorless isn't nearly as bad as CIPA figures suggest, their system doesn't really work in the real world.
I hit 2000 frames on a Fuji X-T10, quoted life is about 1/6th of that. For weddings I average at least 600 from the a7RII before dropping to 10%, which is my limit for changing a battery at a wedding. 3 batteries sees me through an entire wedding, even though in theory that would be 6-7 batteries if you took the numbers at face value.
I hit 2000 frames on a Fuji X-T10, quoted life is about 1/6th of that. For weddings I average at least 600 from the a7RII before dropping to 10%, which is my limit for changing a battery at a wedding. 3 batteries sees me through an entire wedding, even though in theory that would be 6-7 batteries if you took the numbers at face value.
steveatesh said:
Seriously the hardest part was that after a few steps she kept dropping her face to look at the ground and the camera lost focus, but would regain it when she looked up again.
That's a good reason why you need a proper camera to shoot sports. 'Eye focus' is for snappers with smartphones, sorry!Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff