Which system in 2016?

<p>I have been on the fence about which smaller format to invest in for sometime now. Last year I was close to lightening my load for a trip to Costa Rica but in the end elected to take my large Nikon gear instead. I couldn't decide between all the pros and cons I perceived between the Fujis, Olys, and Sonys. I didn't look beyond those brands. I tried to compare the lines as best I could online as I'm not near any camera stores. When I finally got a couple in my hands I was overwhelmed by the individual viewfinders, controls and menus and couldn't make a decision. <br>

I'm currently using a D800E and seven pro lenses. For Costa Rica I packed a Sigma 35mm, AF-50mm, AF-S 105mm VR. It was heavy some days but I never regretted the decision once it was made. This trip is to Italy for 23 days, landing in Venice and exiting from Sicily. Lots of landscapes and interior photography in dimly lit museums and galleries. <br>

So, my question is aimed at those of you who have made a similar decision and why? Which brand has the best lens options, image quality and convenience of features to substitute for the D800E while on the road? Short of Leica, I don't really have a cost limit. I'm a perfectionist, for better or worse, so I'll be critical of the results most of all.<br>

Thanks everyone.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>lightening my load</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unless you are going with a smaller-sensored system than what you currently use, there won't be all that much "load-lightening". If that's an option, then I would look at Fuji first, Sony second, and Olympus last.<br>

<br /> My travel kit for a trip like yours would be D810, 16-35/4 VR, 70-200/4 VR, Sigma 24/1.4 and Sigma 35/1.4. The alternative of a Sony A7II/A7RII, 16-35/4, 70-200/4 VR, Zeiss 35/1.4 and Batis 25/2 would come out at most 2 lbs lighter.<br>

<br /> My compact alternative for the above Nikon system would be a Sony A7II, Heliar 15/4.5, Ultron 21/2.8, Nokton 40/1.4, Summicron 90/2 - all manual focus and quite a step down from the versatility of the using zooms. And quite likely not a lens selection that satisfies a perfectionist.</p>

<p>It's a tough call for sure. I used and still have a D800E and both "holy trinities," 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and 24, 45, and 85 PCE's. I now use a Fuji X T-1. I have both primes, 14, 23, 35, 56, 60 macro and zooms, 10-21, 16-55, and 50-140. Yes, no doubt I have way too many lenses. I rented a Sony A7RII, "to get it out of my system," and concluded that my Fuji works just fine. I too am a perfectionist, using large format, and medium format in the film era. I do not print large, 13x20 is usually my largest and 9x13 is my usual so 42MP is overkill (?). If you have friends with any of these systems, handle them, shoot with them. Fuji's lenses are well made and optically excellent. My problem with the Sony, and I do occasionally long for full frame, was that there was minimal size and weight savings, especially with the new zooms. Even my Fuji zooms are not exactly small or light. Sony lenses also tend to be pretty expensive, though I know you said cost wa not a huge issue. When I rented, the simple 50mm f/1.8 lens cost almost US$1,000. I don't mind paying for quality, I used Hasselblad and Mamiya 7 systems but that seemed egregious at the time. I sat down and made a spreadsheet of the weights and costs of many combinations, Fuji, Sony, and Nikon. I'd be happy to share it with you off line if you message me. Lloyd Chambers blog has lots of opinions on this conundrum as well. You might want to look at it.<br>

Good luck.</p>

<p>I'm still on the fence about a smaller, lighter system - if yes, it'd be Fuji because i like their ergonomics and plenty of good small primes (and I do not specifically care for zooms). But, no first hand experience so I can't say anything useful.</p>

<p>I don't know when you'll be leaving exactly, but I would avoid a new system fairly short before leaving. Not only to get used to it, but typically electronic products fail in the first weeks, or after years of use. So a bit of safety margin is useful, to ensure whatever you get is free of defects. If you do not have that time, the D810 with a 35 and 105 should work perfectly fine ;-)</p>

<p>Another fan of the Fuji system. Have had an X-E2 for quite some time, and recently added a used X-T1 to the mix.<br>

Although I still have my Nikon DSLR, it gets much less use now, because I really appreciate the lighter weight and smaller form factor Fuji offers. Will also add that I was very impressed with the Zeiss 32mm lens that I used for the first time yesterday. Very sharp, and great color fidelity.</p>

<p>I, too, would look at Fuji as FF mirrorless will save you only a small amount of weight if at all, looking at a system as a whole. Now Fuji are at 24 MP they are competitive again resolution-wise. You may find, however, the Sony A6300 is slicker to operate. The Fuji has all the dials and switches you could possibly imagine, which in theory one may like as it harks back to a bygone era, but I found on returning to my DSLR, that I experienced relief using the DSLR menu structure which puts the controls that are rarely used out of sight and mind. This is only an impression and I am sure one could get used to anything.</p>

<p>I think the only option is to go and handle them to see which you prefer. I think the m4/3 are great, but personally I find the diffraction limits and increased depth of field something that is much less attractive, quite apart from the high ISO quality penalty. The latter would not really matter to me for traveling purposes, though.</p>

<p>I made a similar leap from Nikon DX. I went with µ43 and do not regret it because portability was HIGH on the list of important factors, but that Fuji stuff was really awesome, and I would have been just as happy with it.<br /><br />I don't know why, but I don't like the Sony offerings at all. But ymmv of course.</p>

I have Canon M3. I bought it to be compatible with my Canon EOS gear. With an adapter I can use all my EF

lenses on it. It has an APS-C 24 MP sensor. I have all four M lenses and an EVF. There are things I like

about the M3 and things I don't. I have a 7DII and L lenses for sports. I bought the M3 because the whole

four lens kit fits in a small bag that weighs less than four pounds that is easy to carry. Although I have an

adapter, If I want to use EF lenses I use the the 7D. There are operating redundancies in the M3 and I think

it needs a firmware revision to fix some of those things. The focusing square is too big and always seems to

start out in the wrong place on the lcd. I have been shooting in the bright sun lately and the EVF is

invaluable particularly when shooting into back or sidelight. The EVF is not as good as an optical finder. The

display seems to go to Q involuntarily sometimes when in view mode. The menus are not as clear as the

7DII (I have been using EOS since 1988).. Having said all that the M lenses, particularly the 11-22 are

stunningly sharp, the colors are Canon's best. and very inexpensive. The M3 has a slow frame rate at 4FPS

and is not good for sports that I shoot. The shutter is a little slow particlularly in low light. Most importantly, I

use it a lot as I find myself going out the door with it more often than the 7DII. I get great enlargements from

the 24 MP sensor. I do all my own printing. I also really like taking just the body and the 22mm f2 pancake

out to functions. It goes in a big pocket. I got rid of a Sony NEX 5N and lenses because the lenses were

expensive and not as good as my current M lenses. I spent just a little over a thousand for the M3, 11-22. 17-

55, 55-200 and the 22mm. I live in a seaport city with lots of subjects and I like to walk around a lot with a

light bag. The M3 is not perfect but the lenses are sharp with with good color. One could do a lot better with

the Sony A7 series but at a considerably higher price. I can put up with a lot in a body if the pictures are great.

When I shoot swim meets the M3 goes in my thirty pound bag to shoot heads because my arms get weary

carrying white lenses. Actually the M3 works fine with the 100-400L II but it looks kind of silly.

<p>New to the Fuji system after a long period of commiserating with myself over all these issues and I can say without reservation I'm glad I made the leap. One main issue is this tug of war with print size, After 30 years of shooting with medium format, and I still will, it's ridiculous to think that every time one presses the button we will punch out a 30X40 print! Not reality. The size, weight, user friendliness, build quality of the XT-1 is what I've been hoping for, looking for in many years now, and when you harken back to earlier threads on the issues, that's what we have all been looking for. To travel with the XT-1, set your mode and go is ever present. Look at pricing! This in itself is the no brainer of the century. 16X20 prints from this systems sensor are just stunning.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

You say, short of Leica, you do not have a cost limit, so I would suggest a second hand Leica.. the M Monochrom will get the pictures you imply you ought to be getting, as a perfectionist. It's full frame too.<br>

As for lenses, just take a standard one.....if you kindof analyse pictures using other focal lengths, they can get and seem gimmicky after looking at a few, whereas the standard lens forces you to really look at the scene. A question I pose (to myself) is, did Eugene Smith use other lenses?, did Vivian Maier?, did Cartier Bresson?, and perhaps the greatest and most interestingly odd of them all, did Eugene Atget?<br>

My 2 pence worth.</p>

<p>2014-2015 was using a GX7 and would take a Panasonic 12-35 and the Pany 20 for low light. Or sometimes a Summicron 50 or 35. It was/is light and works great.<br>

2016 using a Fuji and their 23mm, I might take just that. I could also, if I felt for sure I would need it, take a Leica 35 and/ 50 or an old CVC 90. But I tend to believe going as light and simple is best. In fact, the 23mm and the 90mm would be good coverage (for me). I also don't buy into the mindset that you will "miss" photos if you don't have the right lenses, etc. You can get fabulous photographs with just 1 prime lens. In other words, agree with andrew brown above.</p>

<p>Only one recommends a Sony A7ii? I'll add my voice to that.</p>

<p>The Sony A7ii (24 MP), A7Rii (42 MP, no AA) and A7Sii (12 MP, 104,000 ISO) have in-body image stabilization (IBIS), which works with any lens of any manufacturer. As a "perfectionist", the OP should appreciate that feature in particular. Furthermore the A7 is full frame, which means you don't have to go to extremes to get wide angle pictures. There are adapters which allow practically any lens to be used, Nikon, Canon, Leica and Voigtlander among the most popular. While Sony got off to a slow start with native lenses, that has changed over the last 18 months, and Sony/Zeiss lenses are among the best in the marketplace with regard to build quality and optical performance. Not inexpensive, however.</p>

<p>That said, "best" is not something easily defined. Each brand and model of camera has a set of features and lenses which meet your needs or not. You need to decide what you want a camera to do, what priority for each feature, and how much you are willing to spend. While the camera may be small and light, lenses may not be, especially the longer their focal length and the faster their aperture.</p>

<p>A 24-70/2.8 zoom for the Sony A7 is the same size and weight as one for a Nikon. A single prime lens might be smaller, but the three or four prime lenses replaced by the 24-70/2.8 are heavier in aggregate, and more expensive by a substantial margin. I worked for years with a Leica plus 35, 50 and 90 mm lenses. A similar kit for the Sony (Fuji, or whatever) will weigh about the same - about 6 pounds - and fit in a fanny pack sized bag.</p>

<p>low light interiors, you say? Fuji is an obvious choice because they have so many wide angle lenses, some of which are pretty fast, like the 16/1.4. if that's not wide enough, they have a 14/2.8 and a 10-24. one of those, the 18-135 and either the 35/2 or 35/1.4 would be a light/versatile kit on an XT1. on an XPro2, i might substitute the zoom lens for a longer prime. the 60/2.4 does 1:2 macro and while its not as fast as the 56/1.2, and somewhat slow-focusing, its also nowhere near as bulky. if you really want a light system with excellent IQ, you have to compromise somewhere, and that's probably on the telephoto side of things. </p>

<p>Sony mirrorless full-frame is also worth considering, but they dont have quite as many lenses as Fuji X right now, so whether their offerings would work for you depends on lens selection. the in-body stabilization is also a plus.</p>

<p>My travel kit is a Sony A7rII, Zeiss Batis FE 25mm f/2. Zeiss Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 and Sony FE 70-200 f/4 zoom. It's compact, quiet, and produces amazing high-quality images. I'm happy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>While Sony got off to a slow start with native lenses, that has changed over the last 18 months, and Sony/Zeiss lenses are among the best in the marketplace with regard to build quality and optical performance. Not inexpensive, however.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>some of the Sony lenses are good, but not all of them, across the board. A few dogs, actually. and Fuji still has a better kit lens, for instance. if you want to lug a big old 24-70 as part of a travel kit, go ahead. i think the Sony FE series works best with primes as far as aesthetic. it lines up with the Fuji system but as far as choosing between the two, good luck there. i think if there are unique features you want in the Sony, that makes sense. But for what the OP is describing as far as intended uses, im not sure Fuji isnt equally capable, if not more. You could easily blow $5000 or $10,000 on expensive gear and not get any better results from spending $2500 or less. if it were me, i'd get a Ricoh GR and a system camera with 2-3 lenses and call it a day. what will matter at the end of the day depends on the photographer, not the gear. </p>

<p>Sony RX1r II<br>

Lightweight, awsome picture quality, outstanding lens, best fit as subtitute without a budget concern.</p>

<p>Sony FE lenses are dogs? The Zeiss Loxia manual primes, 21/2.8, 35/2 and 50/2 hold their own against anything produced by Leica. If you want auto focus, Zeiss Batis 18/2.8, 25/2 and 85/1.8 are just as good. Sony is carrying it's own weight. The 28/2, 35/1.4, 35/2.8, 55/2.8, and 85/1.4, and 90/2.8 Macro are all world class quality. The Sony 16-35/4, 24-70/2.8, and 70-200/4 are ranked superior to anything Canikon has to offer. The older 24-70/4 is often maligned, but it is an excellent lens except in comparison with other Sony lenses, a little soft in the corners at 24 mm. Furthermore Sony zooms are parfocal and exhibit no focus breathing.</p>

<p>What's not to like about a full-frame system?</p>

<p>Woof, woof!</p>

<p>I appreciate all the input. I'm here researching diligently all the suggestions. Some very thoughtful responses and different viewpoints to consider. I would expect no less from this site after my 14 years here. I titled the thread 'in 2016' in case something recent had been released that would affect my decision. <br /> After a lifetime with Nikon I have become accustomed to the menu structure and found last year when I handled a few alternatives that their menus tripped me up. Does anyone here feel that the menus of a particular brand are a selling feature or reason to avoid them? Or the EVFs? It's so hard to get a feel for something so foreign to me in a couple of hours in a store (the nearest which is 2 hours away and not exactly a big city facility).</p><div></div>

<p>For me, the problem with Sony is that it doesn't really save you any space or gain you portability, especially the full-frame stuff. the initial promise of mirrorless was portability. It's why I went with Olympus µ43. I don't print huge, and I don't need to shoot above ISO 3200 really, hardly ever. The small size means I have my whole camera rig (including 2 bodies, 2 primes, the lens-cap fisheye, 2 zooms, and a flash) in the same basic space I used to carry a single body, 2 lenses and a flash in. I'm way happier. And my photos are just as good, except the ones that are way better because before I wouldn't have had my camera with me because it was too big.<br /><br />I got used to the EVF in my Olympus almost immediately. No it doesn't look as nice as a real viewfinder on an SLR, but my camera doesn't exist to entertain my eyes while I'm taking photos, it exists to help me take stuff that we can look at later.</p>

<p>The hardest part about a menu is learning what the options mean, and which ones you wish to use. That can take a few days or weeks while you sort things out. You can get started in a few minutes, but like a new language, it takes time to learn the idioms - the practical aspect of what works best for that camera.</p>

<p>On the plus side, many cameras can assign various options to programmable buttons, and others to a quick menu which can be reached easily. The Sony A7 has at least 6 programmable buttons, and a quick menu which opens with one click.</p>

<p>Electronic viewfinders (EVF) ARE the future. They are 100% frame accurate, and provide a lot of (optional) information you can use while shooting. The downside is they take a lot of power, and batteries tend to be small. Optical finders are better for following active sports.</p>

<p>It might make sense to rent one for a week once you have narrowed the field a bit. For me, the Sony A7ii was love at first sight, but I did a lot of research six months leading up to the purchase, including a stint with a Leica M9 and Leica lenses from my life before SLRs. The deciding factors were in-body stabilization, 100% live view with focusing aids for manual lenses, and the ability to use practically any lens with an inexpensive adapter. I knew what I wanted, and pretty much what to expect. I started out using legacy lenses, Leica and Nikon, but gradually replaced them as Sony added to their list.</p>

<p>I find the video capability useful too. It is broadcast quality (50 MHz), and blends easily with the output of dedicated, professional video cameras. I last used it Monday in a multi-camera shoot. Still or video, it does everything I need it to do. I haven't touched my Nikon kit in several months, or Hasselblad either. I get DSLR versatility and medium format quality in a 20 pound kit.</p>

Fuji makes for a great travel kit. I spent 3 weeks in Europe last year with my X-T1, 23 and 18-135. No regrets, though if

there was any downside the 18-135 isn't the sharpest Fuji offering. (As superzooms go it's not bad.)

<p>For me, the problem with Sony is that it doesn't really save you any space or gain you portability, especially the full-frame stuff. the initial promise of mirrorless was portability. <br>

<br>

Compared with what? Steve Huff shows the A7Rii next to a variety of other cameras. Perhaps next to a micro 4/3rds system it's large, but vs a DSLR ... See for yourself.<br>

<br>

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/08/18/camera-size-sony-a7rii-size-compared/</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here is a photo of my A7Rii working kit, as of today.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18224570-lg.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="600" /></p>

<p>The net weight is a little over 20 pounds in a Thinktank Airport Essentials backpack. The contents, top to bottom, left to right are<br /> Sony 70-200 f/4<br /> Polarizing filters, 62, 72 and 82 mm<br /> Sony 16-35 f/4<br /> Zeiss Loxia 35 f/2<br /> Zeiss Batis 85 f/1.8<br /> Chargers and remotes<br /> Zeiss Batis 25 f/2<br /> Sony A7Rii + Sony 24-70 f/2.8<br />Cards, Misc + rain cover<br /> Sony HVL 60 Flash<br /> Sony A7ii</p>

<p>Not shown is a Thinktank pack for 5 Sony batteries, which fits nicely on top of the A7ii body.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sony FE lenses are dogs? The Zeiss Loxia manual primes, 21/2.8, 35/2 and 50/2 hold their own against anything produced by Leica. If you want auto focus, Zeiss Batis 18/2.8, 25/2 and 85/1.8 are just as good. Sony is carrying it's own weight. The 28/2, 35/1.4, 35/2.8, 55/2.8, and 85/1.4, and 90/2.8 Macro are all world class quality. The Sony 16-35/4, 24-70/2.8, and 70-200/4 are ranked superior to anything Canikon has to offer. The older 24-70/4 is often maligned, but it is an excellent lens except in comparison with other Sony lenses, a little soft in the corners at 24 mm. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Edward, i'm sure Sony appreciate the fact you have taken it upon yourself to be an extension of their marketing department. However, i didnt say <em>all</em> FE lenses are dogs, i said there are a few dogs. the 24-70/4 being one of them, and it kind of proves my point that you mention a 3rd-party manufacturer first. You kind of strain credulity when you proclaim that a just-announced lens like the Batis 18 is "just as good... [as] anything produced by Leica" since that lens isn't even commercially available yet and furthermore hasnt even been reviewed by anyone. It's also a stretch to say the three Sony zooms you listed are "superior" to Canikon offerings, especially since there are only a handful of full reviews of the new 24-70/2.8.</p>

<p>In fact, what <a href="http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/600-zeiss2470f28ff?start=1">photozone</a> found was:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the corner quality disappoints at 24mm when using large to medium aperture settings. You may argue that the quality is fine at mainstream settings here (f/8-f/11) but <em>for this amount of money you simply expect better results here</em>. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That hardly justifies the use of the word "superior" which frankly sounds hyperbolic if not obsessively fanboyish. I'm not saying the 24-70/28 zoom is a bad lens, just that your breathless descriptions of Sony's lens lineup completely lacks any notion of objectivity. As for what's not to like about full-frame, there are two factors which are unavoidable: cost and size/weight. You can mitigate the latter somewhat by using smaller primes, but then again, you can also do that with a Fuji system which will also cost significantly less and also deliver excellent image quality. If the goal is to cut down on a heavy bag, it's hard to deny that APS-C mirrorless hits a price/performance/weight/size sweet spot. Again, i'm not saying Sony FE isnt worth considering, especially if money is no object, but i do think some modicum of rationality should be applied when considering different systems. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The net weight is a little over 20 pounds in a Thinktank Airport Essentials backpack.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Personally, i wouldnt consider a 20-lb. bag a light travel kit. If you actually read the OP's first post, he said he has a D800E and 7 pro lenses, and was looking for a lighter rig. So you posted a pic of a set-up with six lenses and two bodies. That indicates you weren't paying attention. </p>