ariel_s1

<p>John, multiplying your kit with multiple different formats is reasonable to fill holes in your lineup, seeing as you couldn't easily fill the gaps with your requirements. I did the same thing for myself, since mirrorless, despite its advances, doesn't quite replicate what my SLR can do. I actually recommended that a film user do this 4 years ago:<br>

http://www.photo.net/olympus-camera-forum/00aHV5<br>

Buy what works best for you. I'd caution against becoming a photography hoarder, i.e. don't buy a bunch of random crap, but feel free to overcome any shortcomings with other cameras. And keep in mind how unbelievably wide 7mm really is on your m4/3 camera, as well as the immediate capability to zoom as far as 28mm equivalent! I use a Sony a6000 with Zeiss 12mm, but can only imagine how wide 9mm would be!</p>

<p>Joe, the shutter blackout with mirrorless is different than with an SLR. I use an a6000 and a D5200. The D5200 still lets you track the subject in between shots, as the mirror flips up and down. With a mirrorless camera, not only are you technically seeing what's already happened as opposed to what is happening (even if it's just a matter of milliseconds), but until you stop shooting, the display is completely black, with no intermittent capability to see the subject. The sensor is either outputting to the screen/viewfinder or to the memory card.</p>

<p>Eric, I don't agree with regards to Sony. IMO, they are the ones that pioneered meaningful firmware updates. They introduced focus peaking to the mainstream via a firmware upgrade. They just gave the a6000 a huge video upgrade via firmware, too. Whether it's APS-C or full-frame, Sony's firmware updates are about improvements as much as about bugs. I'd even go so far as to argue as that is why Olympus is feeling the pressure to do the same, since Sony really give back to their customers in this way.<br>

Nikon definitely does firmware upgrades incorrectly, as theirs always seem to fix some fatal flaw with the camera that they didn't care to fix in pre-production. Nikon's updates also often brick your currently-functioning 3rd party batteries.</p>

<p>I'll just add to the definitive proof: regarding micro 4/3 equipment, the brand name on the camera or lens or flash is not important. They all work together without issue. I have used the FL-50R on my Panasonic various micro 4/3 cameras, and it functions 100%. The only caveat is that since Panasonic cameras don't have remote flash capability, even though the Olympus camera has a remote receiver, so remote flash with the FL-50R doesn't work. It's like the joke of the patient asking the doctor if he will be able to play piano when his hand heals. His doctor replies that he will, to which to patient responds, "Really? That's amazing, considering that I couldn't before!" Considering their naming scheme, I'd go so far as to say that except for Olympus' built-in remote flash capability that was added on, the Panasonic and Olympus flashes are completely identical regarding circuit boards and other internal parts.</p>

<p>Additionally, this question was already answered here last fall:<br />http://www.photo.net/olympus-camera-forum/00cley<br>

Buy whichever flash you find cheaper. Panasonic jacks up their prices, so I'd pick up the Olympus in most cases.</p>

<p>I've said it probably a thousand times, but given that you will lose autofocus, EXIF data, stabilization, aperture control, etc. then the best "adapter" is simply a Canon camera. This is coming from a NEX-6 shooter, by the way. Given that the electronic adapters come nowhere near the performance of any Canon, you'd be better off buying an SL1 or a T5i for Canon lenses. </p>

<p>I did the same thing as you, bought an old NEX-3, I am also on Windows 8.1, and had no problem upgrading straight from Version 1 to Version 5. I did it mainly for the focus peaking.</p>

<p>David, it seems that you haven't learned from your last question, we can't read your mind! Let us know what camera you're talking about and how you're using your camera, instead of a cryptic question. Do you need to wait for something to run by you, and you actually need a cable release? Do you just want to not shake your camera when taking a tripod-mounted photo? As some intrepid members have figured out from your past posting (which is just as lacking in information), you are likely asking about the a6000.</p>

<p>As everyone has already mentioned, there are a plethora of options available. I have a NEX-6. First of all, you can just set the exposure and then use the auto-timer, which will do the same thing for you as a cable release. Second, you can always buy the Sony RMT-DSLR2 remote, which from a functionality standpoint, is like a cable release on steroids. And third, but unfortunately temporarily unavailable, are the Playmemories applications. You buy them just like you would an app for your smartphone or tablet.</p>

<p>I agree with Peter about spending a *little* more and going with an E-M5, or I think I'd rather have the E-M10 at this point, as it has some features I'd prefer. You'll appreciate the newer sensor than the first 2 cameras that you've mentioned, and it's very useful to have a viewfinder.<br>

With regards to the cameras that you've mentioned, I would get the E-PL5 every time, even though I've historically stuck with the Panasonic cameras. That newer-generation sensor just looks so good all the time, any ISO.</p>

<p>I didn't say that the AF module will see IR. I said that the <strong>sensor</strong> being infrared shielded doesn't have anything to do with the autofocus, since the <strong>sensor</strong> is hidden away behind a mirror and shutter during autofocus.</p>

<p>Marco, if you had linked the correct adapter (the FD mount is the predecessor to the EOS mount), as Louis states, will theoretically hope as you work, as these adapters are merely chunks of metal that move the lens to the correct distance from the sensor. You can even accomplish this through "free-lensing," which is using objects like paper towel rolls to block the light and use your hand to achieve focus. However, I'd follow Philip's advice and just get a single adapter. They are cheap enough for a quality one, and in the real world with manufacturing tolerances, you are just asking for trouble by making the adapter more complicated than it needs to be. You can introduce problems such as the lens not being parallel to the sensor. So, basically what Andy said.</p>

<p>Peter, I highly disagree with your assessment of manual focus as primary lens. So do some large format shooters (ever heard of a crown graphic?), most medium format shooters, a pretty large percentage of mirrorless buyers, most people in Leica-land, everyone that buys the Zeiss or Schneider lenses for their full frame Nikons and Canons, entire forums such as manualfocus and mflenses, etc. Go watch any number of Youtube videos or read any number of forum or Flickr posts about people using these legacy lenses handheld. I do it all the time with older Nikon lenses.<br>

Eric, the question of why not to buy a used $3,000 camera is answered by . . . well, the D3s is a $3,000! Which is best-case scenario, because I would argue that most D3s' bought were bought for professional use, which means gear abuse. Banged around, high shutter count, the works. Plus, the D3s doesn't have live view composition, which means that you lose out on the viewfinder when really needing to nail focus. You also lose out on focus peaking, which is a big deal with manual focus lenses. Plus, some of the lenses may be non-Ai, meaning that they will damage the D3s. The A7s is a far superior camera with regards to manual-focus lens functionality. Asking someone to "just" unnecessarily buy a $3,000 camera is some of the worst advice I've seen in a long time.</p>

<p>Mike, the D7000 doesn't use the sensor to focus, it uses a phase detect autofocus system. The sensor isn't exposed to the scene until exposure in regular operation of the camera.</p>

<p>Get an SB700, which has an AF assist lamp, which will solve all your problems. If you want to help your camera even more, ditch the 18-200mm for something faster, but I had many good years with the 18-200mm despite its sometimes-mediocre image quality, and besides, I traded it for a 16-85mm, which isn't any faster of a lens.</p>

<p>You aren't going to gain anything optically by jumping from kit lens to kit lens. I'd recommend if you're itching for a new lens, then to get something that would complement your current glass kit.</p>

<p>Guys, don't forget that with a Nikon DX lens, the lens will not have an aperture ring. So, the adapter will need to have mechanics to adjust the aperture lever on the back of a Nikon lens. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that it would take more than $25-$45 to precise machine an adapter, so I don't see why some places are charging $150+ for it, besides for customers that don't understand basic engineering.</p>

<p>Hoi, which lenses are you planning on using with your Sony? At this point, I could buy a good-condition D3200 for about $300. For that extra money, you get full EXIF data, along with autofocus, which is pretty tempting. What is your intended use of adapting lenses? If for photography, a better option for you may be to buy a D3200 or D5200. Given that the Nikon DX lenses are specifically made to have full functionality on Nikon DX cameras, it might be better to just pick one up. I see my Nex-6 as being ideal for manual focus Nikon lenses that work BETTER on the NEX-6 than on a comparable Nikon camera, because of live view and focus peaking. If I had lenses that worked better on Nikon than via an adapter, like the 16-85mm or 70-200mm VR, then you can be sure that I'd still have Nikon DSLRs here at home!</p>

<p>As mentioned, try a different card, and I hope that you are using the camera to format the card before use as well.</p>

<p>Sorry JDM, but that isn't true. The D5100 can mount non-Ai lenses without issue. As can the D40, D60, any of the D3x00 cameras, and any of the D5x00 cameras. Basic rule is, if they don't have an autofocus motor, chances are that they can mount pre-Ai lenses without issue. That hilarious website completely contradicts the wealth of knowledge on the internet, along with Nikon's own site:<br>

https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/16436/~/what-lenses-can-i-use-on-the-nikon-d5300,-d5200,-d5100,-d5000,-d3200,-d3100,<br>

And my personal experience as well. </p>

<p>As far as using them, as long as the scene is static, and you are properly shielding the lens, since uncoated lenses are much more resistant to flare and other artifacts from light directly hitting the lens, you will enjoy it. I use many pre-Ai lenses just for fun on a D3100. Just don't overpay for these old lenses, and ensure that they function well.</p>

<p>NEX6000 seems to split the difference and give you the best of all worlds, or even just "settle" for the NEX-6.</p>

<p>I'm sorry Gus, but I agree with Andy. With a single touch on the rear screen, you choose to magnify AND where to magnify. That's a huge time saver. It also keeps you from having to recompose, which is both very convenient and wards away any focus shift if you have a shallower depth of field. Look at how many steps you have just to achieve focus, not to mention that after your little dance you still have to compose the shot. Compare that to:<br>

-frame shot<br>

-touch to magnify on point of focus on screen<br>

-achieve focus<br>

-press shutter</p>

<p>There are two different issues here. First I will address using EF and EF-S lenses on anything besides Canon SLRs. You will lose autofocus, aperture control, IS, exif data, etc. Adapting lenses is best an option for older manual focus lenses which would not give these controls with ANY camera. The best "adapter" for EF and EF-S lenses is simply a Canon SLR. Get yourself the Canon SL1, T3, T4i, T5i, etc. Any of the Rebels. There will be no difference in your bag, since they are almost as small as mirrorless cameras, but with autofocus.</p>

<p>Now, with regards to lenses that you should consider adapting, such as FD, Minolta Rokkor, Zeiss, etc:</p>

<p>As someone whose most-used camera is quickly becoming my Panasonic G5, upgraded from a Panasonic G2, which is a surprise since my Panasonic gear was originally purchased to be a backup to my Nikon gear, I would NOT recommend Panasonic or Olympus for adapting lenses. First, you want focus peaking, which only a few of the Panasonic and Olympus models have. More importantly, however, the crop factor of 2x really turns all of your lenses into telescopes. A friend recently upgraded his NEX camera to the NEX-6, which is the number 1 camera I would reasonably recommend for adapting lenses. It has focus peaking, a viewfinder, good controls, and to top it all off, it has AMAZING image quality. Even the NEX-5n that is already mentioned is pretty much the same camera, just without the viewfinder if you don't mind.</p>

<p>I very much disagree about the Canon EOS M. It is really not that good of a camera. It is too bad that Canon made it just to confuse mirrorless buyers, instead of making it competitive. They seem to be hesitant to make it good because they don't want to hurt their SLR sales. The SL1 is a better choice IMO, especially since you have to add the $100 adapter for it to function, all just to get pokey slow autofocus. But then again, if you have EF-S lenses, then you already have an EF-S camera, making this all moot, as you've already solved this half of the problem.</p>

<p>Olympus makes the SRF-11, but it isn't cheap. Your other Olympus option would be the FL-600R with a ring flash adapter that redirects the light, or a flash cord to move the flash off-camera. Many people have also reported success with the Metz 15 MS-1.</p>

<p>As mentioned, since it is not a 4/3 or micro 4/3 camera (to which you admit when you mention it is APS-C), you'd probably have better luck posting in the mirrorless camera subforum.<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-forum/<br>

Overall though, it's a decent enough camera. They seem to have put all the specs in, but then didn't take that last step to really make the camera system shine, so it's been eclipsed by micro 4/3, Sony, and recently even the Fuji cameras. Kirk Tuck has been recruited by Samsung to blog about their cameras (they send him cameras to give an honest opinion, they don't pay him from my understanding).<br>

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/</p>

<p>The way that Sigma is able to produce such competitively-priced lenses that still compete from an image-quality point of view is by developing a lens, and being able to defray the development costs among multiple mounts. Seeing as the only lenses that they've currently released for the NEX's mount are the 19mm and 30mm, which are actually just the DP cameras' lenses re-skinned to fit onto Sony cameras (along with the micro 4/3 version as well for Panasonic/Olympus cameras), I don't see them jumping in to make lenses for a niche system that doesn't have any direct competitors. When Sigma is developing a lens, do you think that they want the potential user base to be 10 thousand people or 20 million people? Really, full-frame and Zeiss are the reasons to get the A7; if it's too much money for you, consider a smaller-sensored system such as the regular NEX, micro 4/3, etc.</p>

<p>P.S. Those user figures are completely random. I just used them to illustrate my point.</p>

<p>The 16-50mm is a pancake, and is fairly poorly optically regarded, but it is noticeably wider, and is also much much smaller. Price isn't too different. Really, Google is your friend here. As you'd expect, you are not the first person, or the tenth person, or even the ten thousandth person to consider, "Hey, the NEX system has two midrange zoom kit lenses. I wonder what the consensus is between these two?" Any search such as "NEX 18-55mm vs 16-50mm," "E-mount best midrange lens," and other such creative search terms will yield you a wealth of information. There are also review websites that you may decide to put stock into, such as Photozone and Lenstip. Really, at the end of the day you need to judge for yourself, as there isn't really a correct answer here. All the image quality in the world isn't worth a lick if it means that it's too large for you to reliably carry.</p>

<p>CC, that's a little sensationalist, don't you think? First, look at pretty much ANY new mount, and you'll find the rollout to be rather light. Whether it's the micro 4/3 mentioned in the thread, the Fuji mentioned in this thread, or even all the way up to the Leica S2, you see companies with rather sparse initial offerings. Attributing it solely to Sony is like claiming that, "BMW's poorly-designed cars stop driving when they run out of fuel!" Well, yeah, but so does any other car.</p>

<p>Second, it's misleading to state that the NEX cameras are discontinued. You are making it sound like they aren't going to make any more cameras, and that everyone's current kit is now an orphaned system. More precisely, what is happening is that Sony is standardizing their branding across the camera range, and all future E-mount lenses will just be rebranded with the alpha nomenclature, such as the a7 discussed here, or the crop-sensor a3000. I'd put good money that Sony has new E-mount cameras, and I'd be surprised if a new "NEX-alpha" didn't show up by next summer. Just because they changed the name doesn't mean that it's discontinued. You should really read what this one guy wrote about "a rose by any other name." I don't remember who first posted it, maybe some blogger or something.</p>

<p>And Eric, if you type "fyi SEL55F18Z in stock" into google, you will find a thread discussing how, while you were complaining about the lens not being in stock, people were busy buying it from the B&H website. Good luck next round.</p>

<p>Greg, I agree with others that you are turned up to 11 here. Consider toning down your needs, as they are pretty extreme if f/1.8 isn't enough for you. God forbid you have anything but the absolute highest image quality and highest aperture absolutely available at any time. Go look at the Flickr groups of people making great photos with much lesser equipment. I'd rather have 100 photos from a Canon T3i with kit lens than 0 photos from a 1Ds with L glass sitting in my closet. What wilderness/nature photos are you shooting that require f/2.8 in a zoom or f/1.4 in a prime lens on a full frame camera? Looking at Canon's lineup, you can clearly see why Sony made the design decisions that they did. Canon's 35mm f/2 is 1/3 the price and nearly half the weight of the f/1.4 version. Consider stepping back and viewing camera capability for what it is, as you've been living too deep in the ultra-high-end spectrum for too long. The new Sony, being full frame, even with its "hobbled" aperture lenses, is going to give amazing image quality and very good capability of depth of field control. Not the absolute best, but better than a very overwhelming majority of what's out there, and even more impressive given the cost and SIZE. Go look at what professionals are using today. Two of my photography professors in college, both respected in their fields and quite a profound influence on my shooting, both used cameras that were decidedly mid-level, because it is what worked for them.</p>

<p>I have two travel kits. One WAS a Nikon D200 with lenses, but I traded it down to a D3100 for the size and weight. With the 16-85mm it does more than what I expected it to. The other, which I bought because my fiance is much more likely to pick up, is a micro 4/3 Panasonic G2 with 14-42mm, 45-150mm, and Leica 25mm (normal lens). Do they give me the same image quality as your $30,000 and 20lb setup? Hell no. Do they give me more than enough image quality, and ensure that photos are actually taken that day? Hell yes. A friend just bought a photograph from a New Mexico surveyor whose passion is photography. 50x24", taken with a Canon Rebel with I believe 15-85mm lens, and I'd challenge anyone to be able to look at the photograph and be able to conclusively state that it was taken with Canon's lowest-end crop sensor DSLR and a "mediocre" lens.</p>

<p>Allan, the graininess from the G10 isn't due to the resolution in megapixels. It's due to the lack of dynamic range of the sensor. If you want the go-to compact cameras today, the RX100 that you saw is the first go-to point and shoot for serious photography. The RX10 is the same image quality, but gives you a 24-200mm equivalent f/2.8 lens. They are both a class above everything else you'd be considering in terms of image quality. The other point and shoots are the Fuji cameras (X10, X20, XQ1), newest Canons (S120 and G16), Olympus (XZ-2 and Stylus 1), and Panasonic LX7. For truly pocketable, really the RX100 and Canon S120 are your best options.</p>

<p>JC, if the G10 is too large for the OP, then what do you think he'd make of something like a GH2 with 14-140mm? Or are you just confused about what a jersey pocket is? Plus, if you aren't changing lenses, then you'd probably be better served by a camera like the Olympus Stylus 1, whose smaller sensor is offset by having a constant f/2.8 lens across the same range as your superzoom, and the whole camera is the same price is just your compromised-image-quality glass, not to mention your $1,000 camera body. You seem adamant about imposing your own prejudices onto others, even when their needs are completely different from your own.</p>