The Nikon F mount is the longest running bayonet mount out there, right? Canon dumped FD for EF once already and now they're putting EF on ice unless there's some kind of outcry for new glass for that mount. I don't know that I'd slag Nikon for changes that seem to be worse with Canon. This is part of why I'm still with Pentax. But in the end, it's getting a body that works with the glass you want to use, and you'll work out the hows on your own.
In reply to pres589 (djronnebaum) :
The adapter ring means we can use any EF lens (and we do; the only lens we have is a cheap 50 mm f/1.8). You can spend $100 for a dumb adapter ring, or $200 for one with a digital control ring. We opted for the second so we have the same controls as the newer mirrorless lenses even when using old glass.
And yeah, used lens availability is why we went Canon over Nikon, especially in the ultrawide and macro categories.
re: why would you not want to use mirrorless for motorsports
ultimately, though... always remember... the 'tool' doesn't matter; unless you constrain yourself to want to get a particular shot.
for someone like JG and David... they might have to get that particular shot.
with a 2014 spec bottom-barrel Sony mirrorless I got this (good-ish):
not so good-ish:
but, if I let myself get creative, I got some stuff like this:
and the lightweight meant I could easily get around and get shots like this "unobtrusively"...
if you go back and look at mazdeuce's 2019 OneLap thread, you'll see there were a number of missed shots in there... I didn't hide them. There's some good ones too, imho.
Since I shot all those, I've doubled down by picking up the A7 II... which is in a 'sweet spot' of Full Frame under $1000k. I made the jump from a Nikon D40 to a Canon 5d (original one) when used 5d's dropped down below $1000 in ~2011. If you can afford more, you'll probably have fewer misses than I did, as the tech gets better. Traveling lighter with gear means you'll take more shots, or that's been my experience.... e.g. This past weekend I was taking shots one handed while holding a ~25lb sleepykid#2 while walking... ~3km? I don't think I would have been doing that with the 6D.
I went from a series of really good all-in-ones, to the Nikon J1 when it first came out. I flat-out loved it! The small size and convenience made it easy to take everywhere, and the interchangeable lenses made it flexible. It had good low-light performance for it's day, was great at capturing fast action, and could shoot in RAW. The only reason that I moved on was that I needed a longer lens for car racing and shooting the kids on stage, and Nikon never really expanded its lens selection. Portrait and landscape shots were still great, but I had an iPhone and never really pulled out the Nikon for those.
I went to a Sony Ultra-Zoom camera, which looked like it would tick all the boxes for me. I wasn't interested in professional stuff or artistic expression, just wanted to capture kids and race cars from afar. It was most of the size of an DSLR with a fraction of the image quality. Despite what the specs said, the images were never as good as my J1.
So I moved on to a Nikon D5100 DSLR because it was the only way to get the long zooms I wanted along with decent image quality. I experimented with taking it on trips, like to Disney, with only a small lens but the bulk wasn't worth it. My iPhone proved a better option. I looked hard at a Sony Alpha with a 210mm lens, but the cost even used was as much as a DSLR with more lens options.
Regarding missed shots, I almost never missed a shot with the J1, it could grab anything at anytime without fail. With the DSLR I do miss stuff because I may not have the settings just so.
Dirtybird - not sure if I missed it, but stating a budget range and whether or not you're willing to go used will help narrow down your choices.
Disclaimer: Nikon DSLR shooter here, but got to play with Sony A7III, Canon EOS R, and Nikon Z6 for a bit though. The rest was garnered through spec comparisons and online reviews.
That said, here's my lopsided opinions:
Fuji
Sony
Nikon
Canon
Olympus
I know they have their supporters, but I shoot so much low-light stuff that I haven't really considered micro four-third sensor cameras. Their bodies look great though. I wish they'd at least make a crop sensor, but they'd probably need a whole new range of lenses for that.
Aaaaaaaaannnnd... this is camera-nerd overkill for this thread, so my recommendation is to get either a Sony A6XXX or Fuji XT20 or 30 and life a happier life than the rabbit hole I just tried to send you down. Either one will net you a interchangeable lens crop sensor body with plenty of support.
I shoot on Sony mirrorless and don't think I'll ever switch back to a DSLR. I have the a6000 and A7iii, the a6000 is a decent camera, I use it mostly for a B cam on photo and video or when I travel and need something small I can throw in a bag.
The A7iii does everything I need it to and I have never missed a shot with it. The autofocus is great but it take some getting use to compared to a DSLR.
I will say ergonomics are not great, especially on the a6000 but a vertical grip fixes that and on the A7iii I can shoot video for a full 9 hours of camera on time on just 2 batteries.
I really don't use it much, but I have a Fuji XE-1 that's really quite good for what it is. I use it exclusively with an adapter and my Leica thread mount lenses - normally there's a 21 or a 28 on there, for a 32 or 42 FF equivalent. The non-Bayer sensor produces a different look - not quite as crispy as some sensors - that I really prefer. It has its limitations, and the newer versions are definitely more capable, but I like the rangefinder-style body, and it's certainly plenty good enough for anything I might use it for.
I must say I'm very tempted by some version of the X100, though I don't shoot enough digital to really justify it. But I still kind of want one.
I thought this thread was going to be about this
You'll need to log in to post.
