Anyone coming BACK to FX from mirrorless?

[jonbrisbin]

<p>I started my photography career like many in the early days: 35mm film in a Canon AE-1. Then I bought my first "real" camera, an N70. Then I added digital (D70). Then I switched to Canon (7D). Then I sold all my Canon and switched to Fuji (X-T1). Here's the thing: I love my Fuji and will not be selling it. But as good as the AF is now with the recent firmware updates (and the fast response of the really wonderful 50-140mm lens), I still wonder if my high school sports photography would be better served with something like a D810 + 70-200 VR II. The image quality of the X-T1 sensor combined with the fantastic XF primes is everything they're cracked up to be. I'm getting images from it that I'm super happy with--with one exception: the lack of telephoto options and fast AF for sports. </p>

<p>I'm considering buying a used D810 + 70-200 VR II combo for use exclusively on the football field, tennis courts, and in the gymnasium. I've read about people leaving Canon all the time for mirrorless (as I did) and being perfectly happy with the switch (as I am). But my experience has matched with lots of others who say: if you do sports, you might want to stick with a DSLR for the time being. I'd hate to think that I need to spend about $4k to get this combo to do just a little bit better job (I would probably be shooting the 810 in DX mode a lot for the extra reach so having the 36mp will really only be useful for portraits and specialty shots). </p>

<p>I was curious if anyone here has experience either adding the Fuji (or similar mirrorless system camera) to an existing D810 arsenal or switching from some smaller format to the D810 and can comment on whether lugging around the added weight, size, expense, etc... was really worth the boost in AF performance and croppability of the final image?</p>

<p>I'll likely not be doing this to get a "walk-around camera". I'm happy with the X-T1 for that. I'll continue to use the 16mp X-Trans sensor for most things that don't require ISO >= 6400 and fast AF, even though the X-T1 images at ISO 6400 are really good (but lack DR). But for this narrow use case, I'm wondering if biting the DSLR bullet (again) wouldn't be better in the end than trying to do something with the Fuji it's not really excellent at and being dissatisfied with the result.</p>

<p>Price is not really a concern. I buy almost everything from KEH or B&H and most things I get used so I don't take the big depreciation hit. I'm more concerned with image quality, DR at high ISO, reasonable frame rates, and most importantly: high keeper rates from an excellent and accurate AF system.</p>

<p>I haven't heard of people leaving Nikon for mirrorless like I have seen people leaving Canon so I wondered if the D810 was good enough to encourage people to stay while maybe adding the smaller, lighter cameras as complementary.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Actually, I went from a Nikon FX DSLR (D3) to an FX mirrorless camera (Sony A7ii).</p>

<p>Depreciation is not a loss, rather a tax deduction. For small businesses, you can deduct the full value of the camera in the first year. When you sell it, you must include any value recovered in your income, less any non-depreciated value.</p>

[chuck]

I think the reason why more people are leaving canon for mirrorless probably has to do with the perception that canon

sensors fall short of those of Nikon and Sony in dynamic range, where as Nikon sensors, sourced from Sony, does not

suffer in comparison to Sony.

[jonbrisbin]

<p>@Edward: that's good to know as I generally just let my accountant handle all that. :) But I was actually referring to losing 10-20% of the value of the item as soon as I open the box. I prefer to let someone else take that hit and then I buy it from them so that my resale value and what I paid for it are much closer together. Maybe "depreciation" isn't the right word to use because it has a specific meaning in the context of taxes.</p>

<p>@Chuck: that's an interesting observation and one I hadn't considered. Either way, I found that Canon's sensors were behind everyone else in IQ and DR (well, mainly just Sony and Fuji) and that they as a company seemed to just be rolling on auto and taking their customers for granted and assuming they actually didn't want things like advancements in equipment and long-term support in the form of firmware upgrades. I'm not bitter per se but I can't ever see myself going back to them unless their culture and attitude is significantly changed from where they are at the moment.</p>

<p>It's going to cost me a little over $300 to rent a D810 + 70-200 from lensrentals so I might just have to bite that bullet first and try this out. That's probably the only way I'll really know with any certainty whether the Nikon will complement my X-T1 in the way I expect.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I haven't heard of people leaving Nikon for mirrorless like I have seen people leaving Canon</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is all speculation, we really have no idea who is changing for what. A stop or so dynamic range differences are not really important to most photographers, and certainly not for sports.</p>

<p>Why spend so much on a D810? Why not get a D750, or (perish the thought) a 7DII which is actually designed for sports? There is really no need to spend so much money.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>I shoot with a D800e and a Sony A7R. My original intent for getting the A7R was to have a lightweight option that did not sacrifice on IQ and to have an M-mount digital option that could double as an AF auto-everything digi P&S for family occasions.<br /> <br /> For travel and photo ops that I consider important, I still mostly rely on my D800e, primarily because I know it better and because of several lenses that I already own.<br /> <br /> I don't know that I can go so far as to say that I've gone back from mirrorless to DSLR use because I never intended my A7R to replace my D800e, just to complement it.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Well, I have not actually come BACK from mirrorless to FX - I never really left but was considering it a few months back. Purchased a Sony A7 1 1/2 years ago for reasons unrelated to the issue at hand here. Liked the camera and started to think about building a system - mostly geared towards travel. Considered getting the 16-35/4, 70-200/4 and possibly a 35/1.4 - giving up my D700, 16-35, 70-200/2.8, and Sigma 35/1.4 in favor of a lighter-weight, more compact Sony system. At that time, there was no 85mm Sony/Zeiss lens - so there was nothing to replace the Nikkor 85/1.8G with (now there is the Batis 85/1.8 - more than twice the price of the Nikon and actually heavier).</p>

<p>Only - the Sony/Zeiss system is not actually that much lighter or more compact - the Sony/Zeiss lenses mentioned weigh about the same as their Nikon counterparts, are about the same size, and to boot, all cost more. All in all, about 1 pound in weight saving - almost all due to the smaller A7 body - which caused handling issues. Decided to stick it out with Nikon instead - added a D810, exchanged the 70-200/2.8 for the f/4 version, and added a Sigma 24/1.4 (instead of the more expensive Batis 25/2 for the Sony).<br>

<br /> A bag that's about 2lbs heavier than the "Sony bag" is the price I pay for having a camera that handles better with the lenses I have/was considering. And whose batteries last a lot longer than those in the A7.</p>

<p>If one considers a like-for-like system change, then - as shown above - weight and space savings do not play a major role at all in the decision to go mirrorless (or not).</p>

<p>FWIW, I kept the A7 and build a small, compact system consisting of M-mount lenses around it: 15/4.5, 21/1.8, 40/1.4, 90/2 - all fits in a small Think Tank Retrospective 5 bag - for those time when I don't want or can't take the larger Nikon bag along (or when I want to take advantage of the different look that the M-mount lenses provide).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would probably be shooting the 810 in DX mode a lot for the extra reach</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then get the D7200 instead - what's the point of spending at least twice as much to get a 16MP DX camera?</p>

[eric_arnold]

 

<blockquote>

<p> I'd hate to think that I need to spend about $4k to get this combo to do just a little bit better job (I would probably be shooting the 810 in DX mode a lot for the extra reach so having the 36mp will really only be useful for portraits and specialty shots).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>after a certain point, performance increase is incremental, yet cost is exponential. so that's about the size of it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I haven't heard of people leaving Nikon for mirrorless like I have seen people leaving Canon</p>

</blockquote>

<p>oh, this has happened, in significant numbers. but a lot of people have also held on to their DSLRs for pro shoots and things which mirrorless doesnt offer -- yet.</p>

<p>a few things here: 1) i shoot nikon FX and DX for action photos -- live music, documentary, PJ. i also have a Fuji mirrorless setup based around the XE1, which is used for travel, candid, casual and still photography. i dont consider each mutually exclusive. i've considered selling off my Nikon DX gear and getting an XT1, but knowing that the AF-C tracking isn't as good is one big reason i haven't done so yet ( i may pick up a d750 to replace my aging D3s but i kinda want to see what the upcoming D5 looks like). 2) i'm not sure i would be considering an 810 for sports photography. it's only 7fps with the grip, 5fps in RAW, and 6fps in DX crop mode. Sports cameras typically have been speed cameras--think D2H--which haven't needed huge megapixel counts, which impact processing speed. There are mirrorless cameras which can shoot faster than the 810 (A6000), as well as the Canon 7dII. if you do an equal amount of studio portraiture and landscape work as sports, then a d810 makes more sense. as noted, a D750 would cost significantly less and only allow for less cropping ability. And for pure sports shooting, unless you are mainly shooting at night, a 7dmkII would be even better and less expensive. Another option is a used D700, D3, or D3s, which would give you better AF capability than the Fuji, although at this point a d750 might be a better long-term purchase. And if you plan on mainly shooting an 810 in crop mode, im not sure why you wouldnt just get a d7200.</p>

<p>The other thing is that mirrorless ultimately may surpass DSLRs for autofocus since they can put AF sensors on-chip. This is already happening now with Sony, so it's fair to say that Fujis are maybe one generation behind. Which is to say the XT2 may truly be equal to a DSLR in terms of performance. if you are otherwise happy with your XT1, and don't need the other things full-frame has to offer, waiting a year or two may mean you only have to upgrade a body and not invest in a separate set up of body + lenses. the alleged lack of telephoto is much less of an issue with the 40-150, and Fuji's lens roadmap has an 100-400 on it. they've also delivered on the 90/2 and plan a 120/2.8 macro as well as a 1.4x TC. so i'm not sure what else you would need there, except for a 300mm, maybe. the larger issue IMO is that compact bodies are best paired with compact lenses -- im not sure i would want anything bigger than a 40-150 or 55-200 on a Fuji body.</p>

<p>So... ultimately it comes down to immediate need and availability of budget vs. whether you can wait for next-gen bodies. it makes less and less sense these days to be dialed into just one system, and reportedly, adapters which allow for full AF will be available for F-mount > Sony FF mirrorless, giving Nikon shooters an option currently available now to Canon shooters who have the A7RII. If you absolutely need better AF and subject tracking for sports now and you can afford it, then go for it. OTOH, if you buy into another system now, you may not have the budget available down the line to also upgrade the XT1 when a newer, presumably more-capable, model is released.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>An X-T1 is a quick frame rate camera, but I still don't find its AF (or any mirrorless camera's AF) to be on the level of a good Nikon. If your work includes shooting sports I think you're still best off having a DSLR. Whether a D810 and 70-200 combo is the thing you need is your call.</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>I think it would be a mistake to buy a Nikon D810 for high school sports, that's not what it was designed for. If you can't swing a Nikon D4s, Nikon D4 or Nikon D3s, then I would look at the Nikon D750. I use a Nikon D700 for a back up to my Nikon D4, but for high school sports you really need that low light shooting capacity (High ISO) as well as the continuous shooting capacity, and the Nikon D810 was not designed for either of those, it was designed as a high megapixel camera.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>I have been using my Olympus EM1 (micro 4/3 mirrorless) a lot lately. I can fit a whole range of lenses into a small bag (compared to the space required for the Nikon heavy metals), and I can shoot at ease using one hand. These are big pluses.</p>

<p>But I will not leave Nikon until someone catches up with its superior performance at focus tracking, which is vital for wildlife and action photography. When that happens, I would likely leave and not come back just because there is "FX". Why? At the current situation, it makes sense to have Nikon and mirrorless to back each other up, depending on the need of the situation.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I haven't heard of people leaving Nikon for mirrorless like I have seen people leaving Canon</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Well that's a statistically valid statement.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the reason why more people are leaving canon for mirrorless probably has to do with the perception that canon sensors fall short of those of Nikon and Sony in dynamic range</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I shoot professionally alongside lots of other professionals, at least three times a week. I've been doing this for years in sports, photojournalism, events, and concerts. I have never, repeat, NEVER, heard anyone reference sensors in their camera choice. I've never even heard anyone reference sensors other than on web forums and camera stores. It's a good way to avoid the fundamental issue of taking a good photo.<br>

<br>

Something like this shot is instantly marketable. What all the professionals (the people whose photos have to be marketable, which implies high quality) is who got this and who didn't. It was all that mattered.<br>

</p>

<center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/fwc4.jpg" alt="" width="467" height="700" /></center><center></center><center></center><center></center><center>Nobody stood around talking about sensors when this was taken. And nobody is going home to talk about sensors because of this shot, or anything else taken that day.</center><center></center><center></center>

[Uhooru]

<p>Jeff, are you sure that one of your cohorts in the pit doesn't sidle over to you with a little nudge and say, "hey, what kinda sensor you pack'n?" Its interesting that on photographic site this size, there are way more photographers discussing sensors, then pictures.<br>

Just saying.</p>

[Javier Gutierre]

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3670956">Eric Arnold</a></p>

<p>I have always and still enjoy reading your post. You are always so right on !<br>

Keep writing,<br>

Javier</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Barry, people that see the photo keep saying, "Great photo, you must have a really good sensor!"</p>

[keith_b1]

<p>I'm happy I got the small Fuji XE-1---now, a primitive unit in Fuji-world--- but I'm also happy I still have the 2 Nikon DSLRs also. <br>

They gotta fix the dimness and the freezing/blackout issue with the EVFs before they become completely viable.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3670956" rel="nofollow">Eric Arnold</a><br>

I have always and still enjoy reading your post. You are always so right on !<br />Keep writing,<br />Javier</p>

</blockquote>

<p>thanks, Javier. appreciate it. </p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>I do wonder about mirrorless, but the way it is pushed in the camera shops is almost like hard sell. I don't know why that is. Sometimes I think people are sold the wrong thing because they listen to the salesman too much and either lose interest in photography or have to spend more money later to get what they actually need later on.</p>

<p>Personally I think something like a Nikon Df with compact 20mm f/4 or 45mm f/2.8 is just about right but I do like the direct view through the lens because I appreciate it for what it is - a direct view. Other people probably would revile the thought of such a setup, so its good we have the choice.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Every time I hear about people leaving xxx for zzz in droves I expect it's fanboi-ism of some kind or other.<br /><br />Canon continues to very often (most of the time?) be the number one player. Has been for a while according to the numbers. From what I've seen the "quality of sensor" issue is overblown at best. There are AMAZING photos being shot with Canon cameras.<br /><br />Nikon continues to make fine cameras and continues to be sometimes number one. When I shot DSLR, I chose Nikon because it fit me best, fit in my hand, mostly. It was between them and Canon, and I knew I could learn how to use either rather swiftly.<br /><br />Mirrorless makes sense for people who need what it has to offer, like tiny size and portability (that's why I went to µ43 after using Nikon for years and years. It works better for me now).<br /><br />Anybody who switches cameras all the time is chasing style or something rather than taking actual photographs that matter I expect.</p>

[chuck]

Jeff, the fact people don't talk about it doesn't mean it does not influence their decisions.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>something like a Nikon Df with compact 20mm f/4 or 45mm f/2.8 is just about right but I do like the direct view through the lens because I appreciate it for what it is - a direct view. Other people probably would revile the thought of such a setup</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's indeed a personal decisions - but an A7II has a lot going for it over a Df (not the least is the price). At least for me, it's much easier to manually focus with the magnification aids provided in the EVF of the A7II (I need to use live view for that on the Df). In-camera image stabilization is another plus. EVF vs direct view is a matter of personal choice - each entails some kind of compromise. Just like with any A7 Series camera, I think the Df is only suitable for use with small lenses.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I do wonder about mirrorless, but the way it is pushed in the camera shops is almost like hard sell.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think weight and size are emphasized too much - and as I have shown above, in a like-for-like comparison, there isn't all that much difference.. Where I think mirrorless has an advantage is video - but since I don't do video, I have not paid all that much attention. </p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>My son just finished his high school sports career that I enjoyed shooting photos of. It might have been cheaper for me to retrofit his gym with more light than buying cameras every generation to try to cope with the awful lighting! So, my point is that even a D4 can struggle with the poor flickering light in some gyms or at night on the field, especially with a 2.8 zoom. I had to use fast primes on D700, D3s, D600, and D800, and now D810 cameras in order to get enough shutter speed at sane ISO's.</p>

<p>I don't know why people think a D800/810 is not good for sports. When I had the D3s, I usually ran it at 5-6 FPS anyway to give the AF system a little more time to track. I never had much trouble hitting the shutter at the peak of action, anyway, since I "grew up" shooting sports with an FM and F2, with slower frame rates.</p>

<p>The D810 gives me some more MPx to use primes and crop if necessary. The D750 has a little faster FPS, and might possibly has slight advantages with high ISO and AF performance vs a D810, so the D750 might be a little better choice.</p>

<p>The white balance tracking feature in the very latest Canon cameras is probably a very useful feature, but the AWB in the D810 (and probably the D750) seems a good bit better than earlier generation cameras, which I find to be a big help. Assuming that you will be shooting at night or indoors, I would want to stick with full size sensors for the high ISO performance vs a crop sensor camera.</p>

<p>PS, I have a little mirrorless system now, and can see probably getting an FX sized system in the future, but the current SLR vs mirrorless technology still favors SLR's for sports and action.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>I think weight and size are emphasized too much - and as I have shown above, in a like-for-like comparison, there isn't all that much difference..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I couldn't disagree more. THE reason I went to mirrorless from DSLR is size/weight. Period. I suspect there are a lot like me.</p>

[Spearhead]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff, the fact people don't talk about it doesn't mean it does not influence their decisions.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

Then what are you basing your earlier comment on? ESP?

 

<br />The people I work around talk about what influences their decisions, it's just very different from what people chatting on web forums claim.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I couldn't disagree more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You need to read the entire sentence - I said like-for-like. Going from Nikon DX to m4/3 is not like-for-like; we would need to determine if you want to equal apertures or equivalent apertures in your lenses (and if it's the later, than I doubt that the m4/3 f/2.8 lenses save much weight vs their Nikon f/4 counterparts). Otherwise, you are probably right, strictly speaking I was only comparing FF Nikon with FF Sony - and there the differences are rather minor.</p>