fabriziogiudici

<p>I'd be interested too. I was aware of the Zhongyi Lens Turbo II, but I read a so-so review (can't find it right now). The Zhongyi was much less expensive (about 4x) than the Kipon, so probably the latter is of good quality. Unfortunately is too expensive for my purposes.<br> The reason for which I'm interested is not much the exposure stop gained, but the field of view: I'm playing with a Helios 44-2, which I seem to like so far. Its famous swirly bokeh is already noticeable in the APS-C crop, but just a bit. It is mostly visible in the external area, this a speedbooster would do. But for sure I wouldn't spend for an adapter 12x more money than for the lens.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"If f/4 zoom lenses are acceptable, a comparable mirrorless system will weigh about 30% less than a DSLR system"</p> </blockquote> <p>It can be true and it can be false. It depends on the details. When I switched I really achieved a substantial weight saving. But some alternate choices - e.g. with MFT - would not deliver any substantial saving (I still have the maths to prove the point). When I added a 150-600mm, that lens of course doesn't save weight with respect to its previous counterpart - or it saves just a bit, it depends on what we want to measure. Point is that long teles are still heavy with APS-C and FF, while MFT is lighter, but MFT has very heavy, good wide angle lenses; heavier than APS-C and FF systems. <br /> <br /> That's why I think it doesn't make a lot of sense to stay generic (also because just a few people will buy an "average system") and one must enumerate the lenses she would like to have. Until the OP doesn't provide some more details, this thread is going to die with generic sentences and praises of everybody's own system.</p>

<p>Just for curiosity, I think that we slightly shifted the topic. In the end, if you ask me, all camera systems are fine enough and they don't limit the photographer. Unless one has very specific needs (very very large prints, birds in flight, etc...) we have enough of megapixels and AF. Then one might have different preferences in functions of the ergonomics, size, weight, etc...<br> But the original question was about the lack of lenses in the Sony system. I'd like to understand which lenses are actually missing from the Sony system at the moment, of course also considering all the third party manufacturers.</p>

<p>I understand the point about Sony being expensive... and I don't think we can do anything here.<br /> But - to better understand your question - I'd like to have more details about the limited number of lenses. It was indeed true up to some time ago, but I think the situation has changed - at least for the FF. Furthermore there are many third party manufacturers. What are, in detail, the lenses that you are missing?<br> BTW, I'm a Nikon converted to Sony too. At the moment I have lenses ranging from 8mm to 600mm and pretty pleased (plus some adapted lenses).</p>

<p>Ok, it was easy to predict that the discussion would have included many different perspectives... As I said, that's unavoidable because while it's true that mirrorless is often lighter and smaller, it's not always like that, and it largely depends on the specific models of cameras and lenses. It is what others are saying with multiple examples.<br /> The problem with those examples is that none of them describes a realistic, full case of a switch. In case it might be helpful, I'm giving all the details of my own switch. Note that since I'm describing in details my process, I'm talking of Sony. But I don't want to assert that Sony is better than Fuji or others. My focus is on the process and subjective evaluation rather than a mere comparison of brands, to give a hint of the many things that one must take in consideration; and that, in most cases, even though you gain many things, you're likely to lose some others.</p> <table border="0" frame="VOID" rules="NONE" cellspacing="0"><colgroup><col width="99" /><col width="99" /><col width="125" /><col width="55" /><col width="32" /><col width="67" /><col width="67" /><col width="67" /><col width="67" /><col width="67" /></colgroup> <tbody> <tr> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFF00" width="99" height="18">Nikon</td> <td colspan="8" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFF00" width="578">D5100 + AFS 12-24mm f/4 + AFS 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 + AFS 35mm f/1.8</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFF00" width="67">1645 g</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFF00" height="18">Nikon</td> <td colspan="8" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFF00">D7000 + AF 85mm f/1.8 + AF 180mm f/2.8</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFF00">1920 g</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFF00" height="18">Nikon</td> <td colspan="8" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFF00">300 f/4 AF-S</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFF00">1440 g</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="9" align="LEFT" height="18"> </td> <td align="CENTER">5005 g</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table border="0" frame="VOID" rules="NONE" cellspacing="0"><colgroup><col width="99" /><col width="99" /><col width="125" /><col width="55" /><col width="32" /><col width="67" /><col width="67" /><col width="67" /><col width="67" /><col width="67" /></colgroup> <tbody> <tr> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF9966" width="99" height="18">Sony</td> <td colspan="8" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF9966" width="578">NEX 6 + 10-18mm f/4 + 16-70mm f/4 + Sigma 30mm f/2.8</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FF9966" width="67">1016 g</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF9966" height="18">Sony</td> <td colspan="8" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF9966">a6000 + FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FF9966">1284 g</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF9966" height="18">Sony</td> <td colspan="8" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF9966">Sigma 150-600 mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FF9966">1930 g</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="9" align="LEFT" height="18"> </td> <td align="CENTER"><em>4230 g</em></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>The first two rows are my most frequent carry-on equipment for landscape. The reduction in weight is relevant.<br /> The third row is the additional lens for landscape details (I use long lenses also for that) and wildlife. In this case I bought a lens that is heavier than the replacement (in the equation I should add the MC-11 adapter, but in the Nikon case I should also add the 1.4x and 1.7x teleconverters).<br /> I'm not mentioning some other lenses that I have and consider specialty lenses (e.g. the Trioplan, a fish-eye and a Samyang 12mm f/2 prime that I plan to use for landscape astrophotography).<br /> In the end, I can draw some conclusions, that apply only to my specific switch:</p> <ul> <li>The weight reduction in the carry-on equipment is relevant; this was the primary target, because my neck and back pain started to have quite an impact in the pleasure of going around with a couple of cameras. Now it's back a pleasure.</li> <li>The wildlife equipment is still heavy - but - until I see some technology revolution, I've reckoned that my neck and back pains make wildlife a matter of shooting from the car or a very short walk up to a hide;</li> <li>The weight reduction in the overall equipment is negligible, but better than nothing; there's a space reduction, because now everything but some specialty stuff stays in a single backpack, instead of two;</li> <li>I've expanded the flexibility because I can reach 2mm on the wide side and 100mm on the long side, and having now zooms I have all the intermediates focal lengths without the hassle of changing lens or adding/removing a focal multiplier; but the decision to go for zooms instead of a large number of primes that I previously had is not related to mirrorless vs DSRL;</li> <li>But I've lost some f-stop at full aperture (a pity, but not so much because in the end I wasn't using them a lot in the past).</li> <li>I have lost some efficacy in tracking moving subjects (birds, for me), but perhaps I could re-gain this capability with the a6300. I can't tell, because I got the 150-600mm only recently and in the previous two years I've given up with birds.</li> <li>The EVF vs OVF thing is fundamental. For me, EVF is such a joy over the OVF, e.g. because I finally can enjoy manual focusing - also with specialty lenses - a thing that I'd been trying for years with the OVF and no joy.</li> </ul> <p>On the quality side, the a6000 is no worse than the D7000, the NEX-6 probably just a bit worse than the D5100 with high ISO and shadow noise, but it's not relevant for me. The IQ of lenses has clearly improved (for shorter focals) and not worsened, slightly improved in some cases for the longest focals).<br /> So, what can I say? That I'm happy of the switch, considering my specific needs and budget; but I really can't make universal assertions about mirrorless being better than DSLR, or a brand being better than another. Also, I didn't put in the equation the new stuff that Nikon introduced since when I stopped buying Nikon stuff in 2013. For instance, they have the Nikon 300mm f/4E PF VR that would bring a relevant weight reduction even for such a long focal. OTOH, Sony recently introduced a 70-300mm that seems to be pretty good.<br /> Before choosing I made the same picky computations also for Fuji and MFT (but only up to a certain point in time, when I finally decided that Sony was ok for me). Fuji was just a bit heavier for my specific choice, even though I have to say that I was driven into Sony by the availability of the 16-70mm that is a fantastic range for me (Fuji has got a 18-55). The SEL1670Z was a bit delusional to me, and in the end there are reasons for which, if I re-ran the process, I could pick Fuji over Sony. OTOH, I'm very pleased by the fact that Sigma made available a very good set of lenses by means of their own adapter (which makes them almost native), which they don't offer for Fuji.<br /> MFT happened to prove too heavy for my needs, because of the weight of quality zooms with shorter focals. <br /> I must say that the at some point I had seriously evaluated to switch to mixed brands: Sony for shorter focals, and Fuji for the 140-400mm. This would have further reduced the overall weight and I must say I really love the Fuji ergonomics. I discarded this solution because having a single brand introduces a number of advantages: same accessories such as battery and battery chargers, the fact that having two cameras of the same brand make them an emergency replacer for the other, etc...<br /> Summing up, my message to the OP: it really, really depends on a high number of details and subjective needs and you have to make some homework. And for some points, it can be impacted by the specific moment of history in which you switch, because two options can be so close in the evaluation that in the end the presence or absence of a favourite lens might be fundamental. The scenario might change in a couple of years, but you can't wait forever.</p>

<p>Ok, it was easy to predict that the discussion would have included many different perspectives... As I said, that's unavoidable because while it's true that mirrorless is often lighter and smaller, it's not always like that, and it largely depends on the specific models of cameras and lenses. It is what others are saying with multiple examples.<br> The problem with those examples is that none of them describes a realistic, full case of a switch. In case it might be helpful, I'm giving all the details of my own switch. Note that since I'm describing in details my process, I'm talking of Sony. But I don't want to assert that Sony is better than Fuji or others. My focus is on the process and subjective evaluation rather than a mere comparison of brands, to give a hint of the many things that one must take in consideration; and that, in most cases, even though you gain many things, you're likely to lose some others.</p> <table border="0" frame="VOID" rules="NONE" cellspacing="0"><colgroup><col width="99" /><col width="99" /><col width="125" /><col width="55" /><col width="32" /><col width="67" /><col width="67" /><col width="67" /><col width="67" /><col width="67" /></colgroup> <tbody> <tr> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFF00" width="99" height="18">Nikon</td> <td colspan="8" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFF00" width="578">D5100 + AFS 12-24mm f/4 + AFS 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 + AFS 35mm f/1.8</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFF00" width="67">1645 g</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFF00" height="18">Nikon</td> <td colspan="8" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFF00">D7000 + AF 85mm f/1.8 + AF 180mm f/2.8</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFF00">1920 g</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFF00" height="18">Nikon</td> <td colspan="8" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FFFF00">300 f/4 AF-S</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FFFF00">1440 g</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="9" align="LEFT" height="18"> </td> <td align="CENTER">5005 g</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table border="0" frame="VOID" rules="NONE" cellspacing="0"><colgroup><col width="99" /><col width="99" /><col width="125" /><col width="55" /><col width="32" /><col width="67" /><col width="67" /><col width="67" /><col width="67" /><col width="67" /></colgroup> <tbody> <tr> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF9966" width="99" height="18">Sony</td> <td colspan="8" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF9966" width="578">NEX 6 + 10-18mm f/4 + 16-70mm f/4 + Sigma 30mm f/2.8</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FF9966" width="67">1016 g</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF9966" height="18">Sony</td> <td colspan="8" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF9966">a6000 + FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FF9966">1284 g</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF9966" height="18">Sony</td> <td colspan="8" align="LEFT" bgcolor="#FF9966">Sigma 150-600 mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary</td> <td align="CENTER" bgcolor="#FF9966">1930 g</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="9" align="LEFT" height="18"> </td> <td align="CENTER"><em>4230 g</em></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>The first two rows are my most frequent carry-on equipment for landscape. The reduction in weight is relevant.<br> The third row is the additional lens for landscape details (I use long lenses also for that) and wildlife. In this case I bought a lens that is heavier than the replacement (in the equation I should add the MC-11 adapter, but in the Nikon case I should also add the 1.4x and 1.7x teleconverters).<br> I'm not mentioning some other lenses that I have and consider specialty lenses (e.g. the Trioplan, a fish-eye and a Samyang 12mm f/2 prime that I plan to use for landscape astrophotography).<br> In the end, I can draw some conclusions, that apply only to my specific switch:</p> <ul> <li>The weight reduction in the carry-on equipment is relevant; this was the primary target, because my neck and back pain started to have quite an impact in the pleasure of going around with a couple of cameras. Now it's back a pleasure.</li> <li>The wildlife equipment is still heavy - but - until I see some technology revolution, I've reckoned that my neck and back pains make wildlife a matter of shooting from the car or a very short walk up to a hide;</li> <li>The weight reduction in the overall equipment is negligible, but better than nothing; there's a space reduction, because now everything but some specialty stuff stays in a single backpack, instead of two;</li> <li>I've expanded the flexibility because I can reach 2mm on the wide side and 100mm on the long side, and having now zooms I have all the intermediates focal lengths without the hassle of changing lens or adding/removing a focal multiplier; but the decision to go for zooms instead of a large number of primes that I previously had is not related to mirrorless vs DSRL;</li> <li>But I've lost some f-stop at full aperture (a pity, but not so much because in the end I wasn't using them a lot in the past).</li> <li>I have lost some efficacy in tracking moving subjects (birds, for me), but perhaps I could re-gain this capability with the a6300. I can't tell, because I got the 150-600mm only recently and in the previous two years I've given up with birds.</li> <li>The EVF vs OVF thing is fundamental. For me, EVF is such a joy over the OVF, e.g. because I finally can enjoy manual focusing - also with specialty lenses - a thing that I'd been trying for years with the OVF and no joy.</li> </ul> <p>On the quality side, the a6000 is no worse than the D7000, the NEX-6 probably just a bit worse than the D5100 with high ISO and shadow noise, but it's not relevant for me. The IQ of lenses has clearly improved (for shorter focals) and not worsened, slightly improved in some cases for the longest focals).<br> So, what can I say? That I'm happy of the switch, considering my specific needs and budget; but I really can't make universal assertions about mirrorless being better than DSLR, or a brand being better than another. Also, I didn't put in the equation the new stuff that Nikon introduced since when I stopped buying Nikon stuff in 2013. For instance, they have the Nikon 300mm f/4E PF VR that would bring a relevant weight reduction even for such a long focal.<br> Before choosing I made the same picky computations also for Fuji and MFT (but only up to a certain point in time, when I finally decided that Sony was ok for me). Fuji was just a bit heavier for my specific choice, even though I have to say that I was driven into Sony by the availability of the 16-70mm that is a fantastic range for me (Fuji has got a 18-55). The SEL1670Z was a bit delusional to me, and in the end there are reasons for which, if I re-ran the process, I could pick Fuji over Sony. OTOH, I'm very pleased by the fact that Sigma made available a very good set of lenses by means of their own adapter (which makes them almost native), which they don't offer for Fuji.<br> MFT happened to prove too heavy for my needs, because of the weight of quality zooms with shorter focals. <br> I must say that the at some point I had seriously evaluated to switch to mixed brands: Sony for shorter focals, and Fuji for the 140-400mm. This would have further reduced the overall weight and I must say I really love the Fuji ergonomics. I discarded this solution because having a single brand introduces a number of advantages: same accessories such as battery and battery chargers, the fact that having two cameras of the same brand make them an emergency replacer for the other, etc...<br> Summing up, my message to the OP: it really, really depends on a high number of details and subjective needs and you have to make some homework. And for some points, it can be impacted by the specific moment of history in which you switch, because two options can be so close in the evaluation that in the end the presence or absence of a favourite lens might be fundamental. The scenario might change in a couple of years, but you can't wait forever.</p>

<p>When I switched, I didn't sell Nikon stuff before being able to try the Sony replacements. So, in general, I second the advice about not selling the old stuff immediately.<br> If you live in a country where there's an affordable rental service, it might be a good idea to use it to try some expensive stuff before buying. Of course, it all depends on the actual costs.<br> Unfortunately I don't have any such service in my country, so I had to carefully evaluate and then risk the buy before trying every single item.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Many of the Sony/Zeiss lenses don't have any weight or size advantage over their DSLR counterparts.</p> </blockquote> <p>True, but the same holds true for other system too. Indeed, I think the core of the response is "selecting carefully": it really depends on the cameras and lenses one needs. To support my decisions about the switch, I spent several hours (months in elapsed time, also because at the time the mirrorless lens lineups weren't complete) by preparing a spreadsheet and filling it with the specifications of my old system (Nikon) and a number of possible variants with Sony, Fuji, MFT. I could first exclude combinations that didn't give me a weight advantage (MFT was excluded first, Sony and Fuji were substantially on par), then I went and read all the reviews to check that I wasn't going to lose the quality. It was a long thing, but in the end I think I picked a good solution.</p>

<blockquote> <p>If your tool is a 300 mm, f/2.8 lens, the size of the camera is a secondary consideration. That's true even for fast zoom lenses, which are the staple for journalists.</p> </blockquote> <p>If you're talking about pros, I think you're correct. My point is that a pro can afford to spend a lot of money on tools, because he makes a living out of them, so he can even pick different systems, etc... This is not necessarily true for a serious amateur who doesn't want to spend a lot of money. I mean: I've completed my Sony setup with the Sigma 150-600mm C plus Sigma MC-11. Together with the a6000, it's basically the same size and weight of my old Nikon D7000 + AF-S 300mm f/4. I use long focals for landscapes too, but this is a typical wildlife/birding combo. So we can say that in this area - similar to the sport segment you referred above - there are no size/weight advantages.<br /> But the same E-mount system allows me to go much more lightweight in shorter focal combinations and for me it's a value to have a single system rather than different ones. And while I'm losing something in AF at the moment, I suspect I'll be more or less at the same level when I will upgrade to the a6300. Plus, I'll be enjoying the EVF.</p>

<blockquote> <blockquote> <p>so the savings in weight and bulk are not all that significant.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's true, but I'm not sure is relevant. I mean: I was an APS-C Nikon shooter, I turned into an APS-C Sony shooter. Up to 70mm the weight saving is relevant and that's why I switched (I carefully computed the weight and size of many possible combinations of camera + lens, including other systems such as Fuji or m43 before switching). Up to 200mm is not relevant; longer than 200mm there's no weight saving (but I extended my range from 300/500mm - with teleconverter - to 600mm). So, yes, for me bulk and weight were relevant.<br /> <br /> But I'm seeing a lot of people moving to Sony full frame and using expensive glass even at shorter focals, and in the end those combos are not much lighter than the equivalent DSLR system. So I presume that people is appreciating other features, such as the EVF. Actually I like the EVF a lot - in the beginning I considered it a side-effect that I had to accept for going lighter, but I appreciated it so much that for several months in which I still had the Nikon body operational with the 300mm, that I hadn't replaced yet, I found myself really unwilling to use it because of the OVF. Also, the EVF enabled me to comfortably work with manual focusing, which had been always a problem for me with the OVF.</p> </blockquote>

<p>The existence of patents doesn't automatically means that new products will see the light. It means that Nikon is technically able to produce something new, but it says nothing about the price and profitability of the supposed new products. <br> <br /> But let's assume that Nikon is really heading there... Too late for me. I've completely replaced my Nikon stuff with Sony. They lost a customer with almost 15 years of fidelity.</p>

<p>I bought this:<br> http://www.amazon.it/Novit%C3%A0-Caricabatteria-Batteria-NP-FW50-SLT-A55V/dp/B00AKFW10C?ie=UTF8&psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00</p> <p>It's Amazon Italy, but you can clearly see the model number. I've been using since almost two years, both with the a6000 and the NEX-6. It works well, the battery keeps the charge and the charger is nice as it also sports an USB output and an USB input, in addition to the plug for the wall power cable.</p>

<p>After switching to the Sony system I bought a Trioplan, hence I also bought a simple M42/NEX adapter on eBay. Fine. I later bought a helicoid adapter for the Nikon mount (to use a few Nikon legacy lenses I have) and recently a tilt adapter (tilt only, much cheaper than tilt&shift), because I want to experiment. I must say that the mechanical quality of the latter two adapters is absolutely fine, everything locks in the proper way. I don't have the tools to measure whether alignment is preserved... but it's not a big deal with macro, and it's not an issue with the tilt adapter. A couple of weeks ago I ordered another tilt adapter, for the m42 mount, to further experiment with other legacy lenses I'd like to buy.<br> So, my comment is that there are very good adapters on the market with extended features, such as helicoid and tilt. The problem is: mine are brandless, bought on eBay, so I can't recommend a specific brand/model. My suggestion is the obvious one: if you want to try them, choose a vendor with a good reputation and a liberal return policy.</p>

<p>Verify what I'm saying, but I believe that the lens is part of a series of products that share the same optical design for all mounts; the only difference is the flange focal distance. From this point of view, nothing changes if you use the native E-mount or the adapted A-mount, or any other mount (and, if I'm not wrong, neither the A-mount nor the E-mount have electronics).<br /> So it depends on the quality of the adapter: whether it steadily keeps the lens focal plane parallel to the sensor, without play. Unless you picked a super-cheap one with poor machinery, you should be ok.</p>

<p>"longevity of product support"<br /> The question about longevity... is important, because - as it has been said - those money are hard earned cash, but in the end nothing is forever. When I started seriously with photography and picked a system (it was Nikon vs Canon) circa 2000, I was thinking that it would have been my system forever. I mean: I knew that probably for some things I could have wished for Canon (while still appreciating Nikon for other stuff), but I thought that there would have been nothing that, at some point, would have pushed me to completely switch system. Until they invented mirrorless and I realised my back/neck pain was limiting my photos (not to count other things that happened: 9/11 and the stricter controls, and higher costs, for extra-luggage in airplanes, etc...).<br /> So I'm not telling myself the lie that in 2030 I'll be shooting with Sony... :-) The important thing is that the system doesn't disappear much earlier, but as it has been said it's very unlikely at this point.<br /> PS The only thing dating back to 2000 that will probably be still with me in 2030 is my carbon fiber tripod (unless I break it): can't be smaller, as I need is as tall as it is, and can't be lighter, because long lenses will be always (*) heavy and the tripod must be balanced.<br /> (*) ...perhaps... ;-)</p>

<p>"buying into a system that isn't going to have support from its manufacturer over the long term"<br> This is a big issue and if you want me to be drastic, I think nobody can be sure that any mirrorless system survives in the long term (this is not because I'm unhappy about them, on the contrary: it's that marketing numbers are going up and down without a clear, long-term trend). So, there's definitely some amount of risk in going mirrorless.<br> Given that, about all the systems, I think that the E-mount is one of the most stable, as you mentioned a number of third party manufacturers that endorsed it. While, for instance, there has been a recent rumor about Sigma no more supporting X-mount (I don't know whether it has been confirmed - it would be a pity, indeed, because I think that Fuji system is great).</p>

<p>I'm fine from 8mm to 200mm (8mm thanks to Samyang). Beyond 200mm Sony is really sleeping; not only for the A6000, of course, but also for full-frame (even worse, since they can't take advantage of the crop-factor).<br> A recent essay from LL resumes the situation and enumerates a number of work-arounds for long lenses that might help:<br> https://luminous-landscape.com/sony-a7rii-long-lenses/<br> The lack of long lenses in E-mount made by third parties tells us that even third parties are sleeping at the moment.</p>

<p>I still have a Nikon DSLR, but only for the 300mm, waiting for the market to provide a valid E-mount alternative.<br /> Sure, my rate of misfocused photos raised a bit (we're talking of a minimal percentage though). The NEX-6 has a serious limitation, that you can't decouple AF from the trigger release - you have to keep the trigger half-pressed, a thing that I find uncomfortable. The A6000, instead, can decouple AF from the trigger release, and I have less misfocused shots. In this case, one has to get into acquaintance with a different system, with different options. For instance, one can select the area of the single focusing sensor, having it much smaller than I was used to with my Nikon DSLR. It's quite useful e.g. for precision focusing with a very shallow DoF (e.g. parts of a flower). In other circumstances, enlarging the area is better. Also, the different focusing system has different corner cases than phase detection, and one must learn them. Now that I know when the AF could fail, I double check in manual mode. The capability of having a live 1:1 preview for focusing, a thing that couldn't happen with the OVF (I even tried with eyepiece magnifiers, but they are cumbersome to use), makes it easier to deal with these cases.<br /> I'm only talking of static subjects for now. Typical moving subjects are wildlife and birds, and usually they need the longer focal, so the 300mm and the Nikon DSLR.</p>

<blockquote> <p>One of the top-rated (by critics) movies in theaters right now is Tangerine. It was shot on a phone.<br> There are people who think photography is about equipment and people who think it's about what it says. Nobody's equipment gets hung up on walls after they die, no matter how good it is. Photographs that say something, on the other hand, do.</p> </blockquote> <p>While I'm perfectly aware than a smartphone is a very good photographic tool for _certain_ kind of photos, the citation is totally inappropriate. I don't know about Tangerine, but I'm talking in general: given that most of the media stuff around is just crap (sure, including mega-productions with big bucks in equipment), the ultimate marketing tools for moviemakers is "hey, I just made this with an iPhone". Which totally contradicts the second paragraph, that people and ideas should be more important than equipment.<br> The relationship between technology and creativity is well known: visual arts need technology for make their products. Sometimes they need a very broad range of possibilities, sometimes they need only very simple things. The fact that there are indeed masterpieces made with a black pencil and white paper doesn't mean that Raffaello and Michelangelo didn't need a very sophisticated palette of colours for their masterpieces. Another example in painting is that the French Impressionists couldn't have created a new visual style without a new array of technologies (most notably, thin brushes, portable canvas facilities - no <em>en plein air</em> otherwise - and new colours).<br> Bringing it back to our topic: the OP asked whether FF is needed. The answer has been given: there are certain kinds of shots that are harder, or even impossible to do, with smaller sensor. Maybe one wants them, so he needs FF. Maybe one doesn't want, so he doesn't need FF. It's clear that every photo or movie done with an iPhone can't make use of shallow DoF. There is a number of movies, ranging from Ingmar Bergman's to Sergio Leone's (just to make two very different, random citations), that couldn't have been made - and couldn't be made today - with an iPhone.</p>

<p>As others said, the larger the photosites, the better S/N ratio, and it's a matter of physics. Now, most of us don't need the best single piece of technology on the market. A Large Format sensor would definitely provide the best S/N quality for my photos, but 1) costs too much and 2) makes equipment too large and heavy. That's why APS-C is the good trade off for me, also because in the past few years APS-C sensors reached a very very good S/N ratio. I can say APS-C reached the sufficiency level for me, at the point that other factors - such as weight - are more relevant.<br /> For what concerns Fuji. I'm a Sony owner, but I'm not a fanboy. I evaluated Fuji a couple of years ago, in the end I picked Sony for a number of subjective reasons - or, better, objective reasons weighted by subjective priorities. But I think Fuji stuff is excellent. I suspect DPreview ratings are biased because their software for demosaicing the files produced by the Fuji Trans sensor is not good enough. Probably even older versions of Lightroom were not good enough. There's clearly plenty of excellent photos around taken with Fuji, that would be ok for me.<br /> There's anyway an issue that wasn't commented before (*): DoF and bokeh. The smaller the sensor, the deeper the DoF is, given the same ƒ number (and "equivalent" focal length). A 100mm µ43 ƒ/2.8 lens produces roughly the same DoF of a 200mm FF ƒ/5.6 lens (framing the same subject), thus the out-of-focus areas are less blurred. In fact, lens manufacturers for the µ43 systems make also lenses with very large apertures - e.g. ƒ/0.95, for people for which bokeh is fundamental. Unfortunately, they tend to be expensive and jeopardise the ligthweight factor. In general, the more you are interested in photos with large out-of-focus areas and isolated subjects (e.g. portraits or some kind of wildlife shots), the more chances FF fits better your needs ... _for this particular feature_; clearly also in this case there are other features to evaluate. I do also wildlife stuff where I like to isolate the subject, but - again - FF is too expensive and too heavy for me. So I live with APS-C. µ43 would probably be not good for me.<br /> BTW, this bokeh thing is the most relevant limitation of photos taken with smartphones, since their sensors are even smaller. OTOH, for the typical casual photo made with smartphones (i.e. selfies), this is not a problem; it even makes focusing less critical and sharper.<br /> You can find a fresh review of a long lens for µ43, also dealing with the bokeh topic, at PhotoZone:<br /> http://www.photozone.de/m43/945_olympus40150f28pro<br /> In particular there are some wildlife sample photos that explain the problem. As the review author shows, you can still render excellent bokeh with a µ43 system, but you need a stronger physical separation of the subject from the background.</p> <p>(*) Well, at least at the moment I started to write my comment. I see that others in the meantime pointed out the bokeh thing.</p>

<p>Before I switched to Sony my general purpose landscape lens was the Nikkor 18-70mm ƒ/3.5-4.5G ED DX AF-S. It was a kit zoom lens, and generally they are not exceptional, but this specific model got a good review by Thom Hogan. I used it for a couple of years and I was satisfied by it. It sells at around 200€ at the moment.<br> Now, the problem is that I don't know how it compares, quality-wise, to the Sony 16-50, also considering that you need an adapter (which might have an impact, especially for wide-angle). That is, I'm not sure it's better than the 16-50.<br> Just a suggestion if you perhaps have a chance to try it and look at the shots before buying - perhaps a rental, if you live in a place where rental is cheap and easy.<br> PS I suppose you evaluated and discarded the Sony 18-105mm, right?</p>

<blockquote> <p>... the lack of fast zooms and shortage of fast primes shouldn't matter to ANYONE who is thinking about getting a full-frame mirrorless?</p> </blockquote> <p>Well, not "anyone". People interested in landscapes don't have any specific need for fast lenses. In general, you're right that there's a problem of completeness, but a good deal of people aren't particularly hurt by this.</p>

<p>Scott,<br> since you're in a "let's re-evaluate anything moment", perhaps it might help the considerations that I did when I switched from Nikon. I moved to Sony, but I'd like to emphasise a couple of considerations about the method, and then anyone applies his own criteria.</p> <ol> <li>As you say, there are tons of options and it really needs that you take the time to evaluate anything. This might be relaxed if you are able to rent some stuff, or to buy it and eventually sell it back later without loosing too much value (this wasn't an option for me).</li> <li>Consider how much weight is important for you. While mirrorless is promising less weight, this isn't necessarily true in all combinations - I stress the point that it's important to evaluate the weight of the combination camera+lenses, because it could lead to surprises. For instance: for my needs, I discovered that m43 wasn't a lot of gain in weight for focals shorter than 100mm (equivalent): cameras are light, but the lenses I was interested to were heavier than my Nikkors. On the contrary, for longer focals there's an evident advantage of m43 over e.g. Sony.</li> <li>I value "classic" controls too, but weight for me was more important. For the likeness of controls, yes, Fuji and Olympus are better than Sony.</li> <li>Sony is, at the moment, the one providing better AF. But as you're interested in mostly static stuff, this is not important.</li> <li>On the other hand, Sony is the one providing a less complete lens system, if you are only focused in APS-C. It's ok for me, even though I had to buy a FE lens (the SEL70200G). It's of excellent quality, but it's heavier than it could be for an APS-C sensor. There is no native solution longer than 200mm, and as far as I know nothing in the roadmap. Olympus and Fuji t least have something in the roadmap.</li> <li>The biggest limitation of m43 is the number of megapixel. It's quite clear that they don't feel about going over 16MP natively, because Olympus proposes the strategy of oversampling. On the other hand, oversampling works, with some limitations, which probably are negligible for static objects. Furthermore, you might just not need many megapixels.</li> <li>Evaluate with care also the implications in your workflow; don't assume things are always smooth. For instance, I use Lightroom. With Lightroom I don't have problems with Sony as everything is supported with good quality. At the beginning, there were some problems with Fuji because of their TRANS sensor, but as far as I know everything is fine now. For what concerns Olympus oversampling, I think that there are some problems now, that I suppose will go away in a short time. But be careful.</li> </ol> <p>All in all, I think you have some solid reasons to investigate Olympus and Sony.<br> But don't under-evaluate the a6000. I can give you also some answers about the a6000, which I own. It's dramatically better than my NEX-6 (with the exception of EVF resolution, which is still good, but slightly inferior for manual focusing: nevertheless, with some exercise I proved to be able to manually focus even with a 12mm lens. If it's good for you... you should definitely look into it personally).<br> For EV bracketing the options are (just checked them with the menu in the camera):</p> <ul> <li>steps of 0.3EV, 0.5EV, 0.7EV with sets of 3 or 5 images </li> <li>steps of 1EV, 2EV and 3EV in sets of 3 images</li> </ul> <p>So it seems they fit your needs.</p>

<p>Mark,<br> did you try Samyang? They make a few primes for the APS-C e-mount that look like you wish: no AF, no stabilisation (not even electronics). I've just bought the 12mm f/2 - honestly I got it a few days ago and I can't give a full evaluation, but at first sight it looks very good. It's around 300€. They also offer fast 24mm and 85mm (even though the 24mm is more expensive than your target).</p>

<p>For me, no regret. After 15 years of Nikon, I'm still using the AFS 300 f/4 because there's no comparable product on the Sony market. But sooner or later, it will arrive.<br> Clearly, a part of the evaluation is subjective. I can only tell you that a few weeks ago I had my first winter-sea stroll with mirrorless only ("heavier" configuration: NEX-6 + SEL1670Z, A6000 + SEL70200G). I love strolling on the beach, but each time I pay it with neck aches, so it has never been a 100% good experience. With the mirrorless... everything changed. It was such a joy to get back into my car, after 6km, without a hint of pain.</p>