donbright

Continued good points, but please be patient with me knowledgable people, as I am hot on this new trajectory in learning Sony, as there is one oddity I would like to clear up. First as it seems 36MP and 42MP would be deemed useless using non native Nikkor Manual AIS lenses and that 24MP and less is more realistic. What's with the price differential between the A7ii 24MP camera and the A7s ii 12MP camera? $1498.00 for the A7ii and $2898.00 for the A7s ii? Is this a indication that Sony is about to spring a new 24MP camera release? Less money for more MP? Interesting. The pixel area size of the A7s ii is larger than the pixel area size of the A7ii, obviously a design optimum for low light, but what is the threshold? At what Iso does the A7ii get annoying? If its at 3200 I think I can live with that, or I should say if 3200 is not annoying I can live with that. My working methods is slow, tripods, landscapes, still life, street. I understand that utilizing Nikkor AIS lenses in conjunction with a digital sensor is about other than blistering resolution and that, character and depth in full frame is the expectation.

How real, or significant is the noise issue with the A7ii?

The issue of fast sporting events is not a priority to me, so I've ruled out a DSLR. I'm re-thinking this comment by me, I'm not ruling anything out. There are many complex issues regarding the choice of a full frame camera to run my 7 Nikkor AIS lenses. The Sony A7ii for example, as I've been poking around to get a better understanding of this, uses a 24MP sensor that is not at par with the D-750, and the A7ii seems to suffer from some other issues that have at this point giving me cold feet, so I'll simmer on this.

Ed, Is it to be understood that you thought that the manual Nikkor lenses seemed soft out of the Sony? Compared to new, lets say dedicated Zeiss glass? When you say soft do you mean softer that you hoped? Did the Nikkor lenses seem sharper out of the Sony than what film provided? The Same? In all is it safe to say that these Nikkor lenses that we love are very well complimented by a Sony mirrorless at 24MP? And that it provides a continued decent life for these lenses? The issue of fast sporting events is not a priority to me, so I've ruled out a DSLR.

Today I'm wondering and in keeping to the OPs question, if I were to move to full frame in a Sony for the purpose of re-vitalizing 7 Nikkor AIS lenses, would Sony be the way to go? Or would there be advantages in sticking with a Nikon full frame camera? I have been stung by the mirrorless concept, so I err towards a Sony.

OLD SAN JUAN Fuji XT-1

Geological Mystery! All along this approximately 8th mile stretch of coastline at Crystal Cove, there are these rock discs! Some are flat like this one on their sides, some are flat and level, but in general they are round in shape and there are about 12 of them that get immersed in the surf when the tide is in. I have researched this phenomena and have come up short on a logical explanation. My theory? They are ancient tree stumps that became petrified by the elements of pressure and water. I'm probably way off! Fuji XT-1.

Karim, I agree, slowing down can work against you for the reasons that they say slowing down helps! And your right, its not a right or wrong issue, although in the case of a Landscape when precise focusing is needed to insure hyperlocal distance placement, manual focusing for this is best although not required but if the autofocus reticle is not placed right, voila.

I can attest, or pile on to the positive review of the 18-55 lens. It has become the sleeper surprise performer for X-camera's. I have never seen a shot of mine yet that was a loss because of some sort of lack of sharpness, or whatever optical performance characteristic. True, there are Fuji fixed lenses that are better for the peepers, but for out and out enjoyment getting in to a majority of scenes and conditions to nail the shot, 18-55 was obviously derived from some expert thought. The only thing I suspect was a issue was at one time or two, I forgot to switch off OIS when using a tripod, so that was on me.

Christopher Burkett. The remaining color film and print Photographer relying exclusively on wet print developing. Utilizing the last of Cibachrome chemistry who's work can be seen at the Photography West Gallery studio in downtown Carmel on Dolores St. There's no explaining the impact that his Photographs have on the eye unless you see them in person. There's no better definition of the Phenomenon of, "Depth," until you see these prints in person. Galleries throughout the US. http://christopherburkett.com

I have had a Panasonic Lumix LX-5 since new. I have actually sought reasons to let it go but I can't find any! I've grown to love this camera. It backs up, Nikon film,, Pentax 67II, and my latest affair with Fuji's XT-1, soon to be XT-2.

Yes Sanford and Thanks, This location on coast highway 1 between Laguna Beach and Newport Beach, known as Scotchmans Cove. Before and during Photography in my life, I drove past this scene and always wanted to pursue this scene in a Photograph, Finally did. The vertical strata on the right base of the cliff exudes strength and the notion of a person having a home on top of all of this amazes me.

Real Estate on the edge! Fuji XT-1, Velvia mode.

A big world! for a little girl. Fuji XT-1

So far it seems the EVFs downsides are tolerable, but nothing yet has stopped getting the shot.

A 27mm would be translate to about 40mm in 135. I have a 40mm F2 Voigtlander Ultron for my Nikons and it proved very well as a worthy lens to stay on board the camera for a variety of uses. I agree f2 is the limit as 2.8 can get sticky for autofocus cameras that aren't strong in autofocus. While we're dreaming here, was about a fixed f2 lens from Fuji equaling 105mm in 135? Yowza! I just think the 90mm Fuji is too long for much real world situations. That could just be me, but I know my 105mm 2.5 Nikkor gets a great workout for general use.