Back to SLR thoughts and ramblings

[bfitzgerald]

Has to be done, choice is a good thing for users. This feels more Minolta than Sony, drive dial/switches perfect...2 things Sony hate.
Canon were a viable choice, except I think Nikon have more in common with Minolta in terms of ergos. Lenses wise it's a wash some gems and turkeys on every mount. Not cheap, but a 5 year warranty and a bit cheaper than a used A99II.

As much as I like the A99, there is nowhere to go with Sony except their MILC or mostly SLT.. Which as I have said I just don't get on with body design/ergo. I have no idea how long DSLR's will be around, what I do know is I was never happy Sony cut off the DSLR models over 10 years ago. Either way I have a lot more choices away from Sony. How much A mount stuff remains, probably not a lot after this. Though I can adapt lenses and if I get a MILC later I have adapters for A and SR/MD mount. It's unlike me to be spendy, but lesson for Sony is, if you don't make it people can't buy it

More thoughts to follow!

PXL_20220506_162132447.jpg (192.34 KiB) Viewed 152352 times

[Fotogeorge]

Yes, it does remind me of Minolta, like a 7D on steroids. I like it, except for the lack of stabilization and weather sealing. The price isn't too steep. I would want lenses with stabilization. I don't care about any video. The camera could be a lot cheaper without video. Nikon lenses are more expensive, unless you go to third-party lenses. It weighs almost 2 pounds. Then when you add accessories and flash it weighs a brick. Get a good monopod with a light weight ball mount. I'm for light weight and mobility. I'm waiting for the Sony a7c replacement, if ever it shows up.

[bfitzgerald]

Weight doesn't bother me, that much. I've done my time playing around with Sony's mirrorless stuff. I just don't like the feel of the cameras, at all. They have nothing to do with MInolta ergos in any way shape or form to my eyes a completely different take. If other people like them, that's great - just did nothing for me.

It's a little smaller than the A99, not as wide, bit taller, weight is similar on both. I'd love it if it has IS in body, reality is I've to accept some compromises, though that Sigma lens has OIS, and it's optically excellent. Very impressed.
Evidently it is sealed:
https://youtu.be/p_TMR5RV27c?t=217

This is a blend of having a decent OVF and up to date live view and it seems to work, the live view is vastly improved over the contrast based systems. I'd say the sensor is far ahead of the A99's one. Even without IS I think I can make up much of the difference just in terms of low light performance. Had Sony kept A Mount going, I might have stuck around despite my not being into the SLT concept that much. Or if they put more effort into the adapters, again I'd have probably stayed with them even though I'm not crazy about their body designs. That annoying F3.5 video AF limitation never understood that. For me too many compromises adapting A Mount lenses, of course that's how Sony want it

[classiccameras]

I have to agree re the Nikon vs Sony A mount. IBS is preferable for me at least, but OIS is very good as well but has bulked out the lenses a bit. Pentax are the only other camera with an OVF and IBS but I wouldn't go near them. Its interesting to note that Nikon use Sony sensors ( or did ) but its all in the software. that makes a good camera. Just look at the system behind the camera, Canon included. Using adaptors is useful on the A Mount but didn't float my boat.

[bfitzgerald]

Sensor IS is great, and I am a fan of that. Thing is Sony did themselves no favours back in the day, pricing their non IS lenses at the same or more than the IS/VR Canikon equivalents. There was no real incentive to buy into Sony glass v their rivals. True some primes had no IS in lenses, but the staple zoom ones mostly did. People like me, who bought into A Mount deeper, were mostly using Minolta lenses, or third party stuff. I didn't buy a single new Sony lens for A Mount, not one. I bought a few used ones over the years. The lens cost was greatly reduced only if you bought the Minolta stuff, many of which I enjoyed and still do. It was never a viable system with what Sony offered, they just didn't flesh it out properly, way too many gaps and obvious missing lenses.

The Sigma lens is about 200g heavier than the Minolta 100mm Macro, you can tell the difference and it's a bit larger too. Though non extending. So far the image quality is top shelf from the Sigma, it's a newer design (about 2012, the Minolta was from the 80's). I loved the Minolta 100mm Macro, excellent lens - this seems to be right up there too and it has the OIS so that helps out.

As tempting as it might be to try Pentax with their sensor IS, is it really a wise move? They have the K1, K1II - a heavier camera compared to this. Much bigger selection of lenses and other things with Canikon. I've no problems with Canon, but their last DSLR full frame was 2017, and the 6dII isn't hitting the spot for me. 5dIV is solid enough, a good machine - a decent used one is similar in price to this brand new

Size weight are subjective. A lot comes down to the lenses IMO. Many fans of the KM7d, yet it's a little heavier and a bit larger than this. The main size difference is the Nikon is a bit taller. A900 is a good bit larger.

Nikon-D780-vs-Konica-Minolta-Maxxum-7D-size-comparison.jpg (41.98 KiB) Viewed 152315 times

Nikon-D780-vs-Sony-Alpha-DSLR-A900-size-comparison.jpg (45.25 KiB) Viewed 152315 times

[bfitzgerald]

Here's a size comparison to the A99ii, which is pretty much an A77/77II body shape

Nikon-D780-vs-Sony-Alpha-A99-II-size-comparison.jpg (44.62 KiB) Viewed 152313 times

Nikon-D780-vs-Sony-Alpha-A99-II-top-view-size-comparison.jpg (34.97 KiB) Viewed 152313 times

The Nikon is a bit taller due to the OVF hump, other than that the size is very similar in other dimensions. And a bit lighter. Don't remember people moaning the A99ii was a huge hulk of a camera or too massive to carry around. Yes MILC are smaller, and they have less on body controls too - which brings some compromises.

A few things on the Nikon stick out. I got the new EN-EL15c battery with this, not the EL15B, this has 20% more capacity v the B. Maybe that's because it came out not long ago and they updated their stocks.
Bottom line, using the OVF - this battery just keeps on giving, and giving. You just cannot run it down, even if you went nuts shooting all day. I got on alright with the A99, but you absolutely had to have a spare battery, no question. Plus aggressive power saving on the LCD. I'd no way walk out the door with the A99 with a half charged battery; with the Nikon even if you had 25% no sweat good to go! I can also charge the battery in camera, via USB-C if I need to.

Sony never updated the NP-FM500H. It was stuck at 1600mAh since day one. Yet the cells increased in capacity over the years, even in the same space. That Nikon cell is 2280mAh and a similar size overall. Sony's SLT users would have liked better run times, and Sony could have done that with newer higher capacity cells. They never bothered to, mind blowing really. SLT has much higher power draw, yet they did nothing at all about it.

On this I have dual UHS-II slots, the A99II was stuck with UHS I, despite the good buffer the clearing times are not that fast. It doesn't even hit the UHS-I speed cap, nowhere near it under 60MB/s. The Nikon, yes it's 24mp - plenty for me. You'll get almost 70 shots 14bit raw, and 100 on anything else. Very deep buffer and much quicker to clear the buffer. I don't understand Sony, they have a flagship camera and put UHS-I slots in it. A £3000/€3500 body top end price for many. There are certainly things I don't like about the Nikon - which I will go into more later on. They seemed to get the obvious things mostly right though

[bfitzgerald]

Quite a lot of similarities with the Dynax 7! It just feels vary familiar with the dials/switches
I'm a huge fan of the drive mode collar/dial. I know a couple of the higher end Sony cameras have it. Most don't and this just feels like a Minolta in many ways. I leaned to Nikon, because Canon has an aversion to dials and switches, which is just plain wrong.

The Sony SLT models moved away from the Minolta thinking too. A button is never as good as a dial, you can just see what is going on instantly with a switch and dial.

FotoJet.jpg (186 KiB) Viewed 152272 times

[classiccameras]

Well, I guess you have convinced yourself which way to go, I would to. The D780 is aimed at the pro thus you get some very good features, go for it.

[bfitzgerald]

It's not so much about convincing myself, rather finding something that works best for me. Everyone has to pick the right tool, if it doesn't feel right - that isn't going to work. It's very subjective. Everyone should use what works for you, be it Micro 4/3, or Fuji or whatever other maker. I find things I like and dislike in every brand/product.

It's a huge shame what happened to A Mount, it never got the investment or effort it deserved. Sony quickly moved away from the Minolta vibe. Minolta tried new things, body designs in particular. Sony are stuck with the same designs repeated over and over again. No variety, no listening to feedback or fixing things.

Using an OVF camera isn't dinosaur, or living in the past. It's like coming home after a long time...
The camera makers hype machines can keep spinning away - don't tell me what I should be using, give me a choice of what I want to use

[classiccameras]

Just a guess, but if Sony continued with A mount would they finally give up SLT and move to more a conventional system, I doubt they even thought about it because their road map is set out for E mount. They should have updated and modernised Minolta cameras rather than SLT.

[bfitzgerald]

I expect it would have been that way. Just rip out that mirror and phase detect AF off the sensor. That is the natural evolution of the concept. I think a lot of A mount users might have pondered that is how Sony would have gone. Either way I think SLT was premature, and it wasn't a great move by Sony. A Mount was more a stomping ground for experimenting. They didn't stick with OVF's for long sadly. No choices given, take it or leave it. I would have stuck with Sony if they kept A mount going though, complaints and compromises abound.
Could also apply to other makers, no need for new mounts - just use the ones you have. Then again that would annoy the die hard MILC fans, who hate any kind of photo legacy on products.

I see good and bad things for DSLR and MILC EVF cameras. I'm simply looking for a choice.
If I buy into a native MILC system, regardless of maker that going to be pretty expensive - it also means I can't use OVF cameras, and that I'm stuck with mostly focus by wire lenses, another bane of so called progress. The only makers to have a MILC and OVF is Fuji, with the XPro models. Ideal world would have a hybrid OVF/EVF. I still see a place for OVF's, it's so refreshing to have a clean view of the subject. It's also nice to be able to use all apertures and get AF in video! Not the silly F3.5 crippling that Sony inflicted on all A Mount cameras, and the LA-EA4 adapter.

[classiccameras]

I still find it a pleasure to use my old Canon 650D with its OVF, also my old Olympus E cameras, but their OVF were pretty awful.
SLT was never used by any other camera brand, probably because of patents, but in reality, people like Canikon were not impressed compared to their OVF cameras. SLT also got a mediocre press and noise was one such negative. Nothing wrong with A mount or Minolta lenses, but Sony just sidelined Minolta lenses in favour of their own,
I will hang on to my A58 as I have a couple of Minolta lenses and it would be a shame to let them go, on the used market they are not worth anything anyway.

[bfitzgerald]

SLT sucked light from the sensor, half a stop. Might not seem like much. Thing is though back in ye A77 days, the first 24mp sensor, coupled with very conservative metering = low light disaster. I don't think the A77 was that bad once you corrected the obvious underexposure, or switched to C/W metering. But that half stop put it worst in class for low light. It was also an issue A99, though less of a problem as the sensor is better; still it's behind say a D610 by at least a stop.

The EVF has it's pro points, it gains up in low light, they did improve the DR and noise/lag over time. Still it's super annoying using the A99 for action, even in the low fps the lag drives me up the wall. The A6300 wasn't much better. I'm sure newer ones have improved I've not used the R6 and other newer ones, still many have that delay issue. Sony should never have done SLT on A Mount, it was never going to be a runner, and only hurt the IQ compared to other makers. That SLT mirror is pretty fragile/easy to mark too. Very strange move from Sony. Nope wasn't a fan of it, I put up with it, nowadays I see it clearly as a blunder from the company.

Here's the D780 at ISO 16,000. It just crushes the a99 in low light.
NR set to low jpeg out of camera. Much as I still like the a99, things have moved on quite a bit. Outside no EVF I have used shows the fine detail of an OVF. This is about having 2 options in one, a good quality OVF, and live view with fast AF phase detect on the back LCD. Best of both I think

55.JPG (167.05 KiB) Viewed 152206 times

6665.JPG (168.21 KiB) Viewed 152206 times

DSC_0009.JPG (175.24 KiB) Viewed 152206 times

[classiccameras]

Like the Fender amp, I have one like that for home use.
What reason did Sony decide to go down the SLT road. They had perfectly good Minolta bodies that could have been developed without SLT.
What did you think of the A380, last of the OVF cameras? I have always fancied one, I believe they did a cheaper A 360

As you say things have moved on, quite dramatically in my view with Canikon, They seem to get things right most of the time and they are very usable cameras for wide ranging subjects, plus best lens line up in the business not to mention the used market. I picked up a nice 15-85 for my 650D on LCE for not much money, its optically excellent but a tad heavy. I think I will look up some old reviews of the A380.

I read somewhere that the SLT mirror could cause slight 'ghosting' in certain situations, not that I ever experienced that.

[bfitzgerald]

The Fender amp is good I should try to use it more!
I have not used the A380, there was an A390 that came later. That to me was when Sony started going "wrong", for want of a better word. Resurrecting the film 5's not very good grip wasn't a good move. I did try an A300/350, but rejected them due to the small and pokey viewfinders. I believe .74x was the size, v the KM5d's and A200's 0.83x. The difference was substantial, and of course I can't say the 5d or A200 VF was amazing, but it was subjectively a little better than most of their rivals and quite acceptable for the class of camera. Too much of a hit to take IMO - and whilst the live view offered some advantages in speed v the slow contrast AF, it didn't cover the entire frame or allow fine manual focus control.

I think it was a response to the no live view A700, which got some stick from the press for not having anything. Strangely the A900 also didn't. Sony ignore it entirely, then decided to do their own unique live view, which fixed some problems, then brought in it's own set of issues. SLT was I believe a consequence of that, and a further push on the full time live view. Some might say Sony were near genius, they could see the future. Again though, SLT never got developed to reach it's potential, and also again brought in some issues too. The first gen I think had some ghosting, I never saw a problem on the later ones. A580 is your last OVF from Sony aka 2011, that's a somewhat more acceptable 0.80x OVF with the dual live view off sensor and in the VF

So here we are many years later, and I've found something that has a good quality optical finder, and fast/accurate live view backed up with all the tweaking you could want, with solid ergonomics in my view close to Minolta's thinking. Of course I wish it could take A Mount lenses (you can get adapters lol), or that it had IS in body. Nikon might have added the grip contacts/built in flash, neither are deal breakers for me as I don't use grips much, but I can see how some might want it. Overall it's a blend of SLR tech with modern off sensor phase detect/top end video - which is something A Mount never offered. It could have, if Sony had stuck with it. They're content to wander off on their EVF path, I think I'm content to wander off on my path here ;-D
These are just tools, you have to find something that works for you, I think I can make this work.

I'm not completely against EVF's, I just don't want to be boxed into not having a choice. Later on perhaps I'll dabble with a Nikon MILC, I just want to use my OVF too. Having a choice is a good thing, perhaps camera makers would do well to understand and accept that.