Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 30 posts | 
by Brian K. on Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:21 pm
User avatar
Brian K.
Lifetime Member
Posts: 913
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Virginia
Member #:00115
Hello fellow NSN'ers,

I will be traveling with my wife on a cruise down the Rhine this coming April for our 30th wedding anniversary. Flying into Zurich for two days, leaving on the cruise from Basel and ending up in Amsterdam for a few more days.

Anyway, I was planning on taking my Canon 5D4, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm lens. I just got back from Best Buy and was playing with a Sony a6300 they had there. It was so small! I really started to like the idea of traveling with a smaller, lighter camera. It came in a kit with 2 lenses for about $1,050. It got me thinking.......(more money to spend :) ). I got back home and looked it up. I see they now have a Sony a6500.

I'm not shooting birds and need a 500mm lens. I'm anticipating wide angle for interiors and some landscape work and a short tele, which did come in the kit. 

I know nothing about mirrorless cameras as I never had a need for one. I will be doing some research on them in the next few weeks.
 
I thought I would ask here first for peoples thoughts and recommendations to get me started and heading in the right direction. I know there are a few different companies making them. I don't think I will make a print over 13x19, if that. Maybe a coffee table book. 

Thanks,

Brian

   
[b]Brian D. Kennedy[/b]
[b]NSN 0115[/b]
http://www.bdkennedy.com
 

by Mike in O on Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:47 pm
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2673
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
What is nice about mirrorless is the flexibility to use other brand lenses and size factor. All the different cameras from 1",micro 4/3, aps-c, and full frame have their strengths but for travel, lens size is everything. I couldn't imagine hauling my FF camera, 24/70, and 70/200 around Europe. I know that m4/3 and Fuji have some great lenses. The 6500 and 6300 (pretty much the same except for in body stabilization) are great cameras but Sony has been focusing on full frame lenses so they lack a bit with native aps-c lenses. The 16/70 f4 Zeiss branded is a pretty good travel lens, covering in Full Frame terms 24/105.
 

by DChan on Sat Mar 03, 2018 2:32 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
From Thom Hogan (http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/  ):
One site reader sent me a "game over m4/3" message.

Not that I can tell. I keep my m4/3 kit around for one reason: it is a well scaled high-end camera that fits into a very tight bag.
E.J. has mentioned several advantages of mirror-less cameras on another thread but quite a few of them are yet to come if they do come. But if you prefer something small and light, you need smaller sensors. For travelling, you may find cameras with very good image stabilization could come in handy when shooting in low light situations as then you can shoot at low ISO with no fear of getting blurred images.

I think not all mirror-less cameras have in-body-image-stabilization system and so you can use lenses from other manufacturers on them only that there's no image stabilization assistance available when you need it.
 

by Mike in O on Sat Mar 03, 2018 2:41 pm
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2673
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
DChan wrote:From Thom Hogan (http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/  ):
One site reader sent me a "game over m4/3" message.

Not that I can tell. I keep my m4/3 kit around for one reason: it is a well scaled high-end camera that fits into a very tight bag.
E.J. has mentioned several advantages of mirror-less cameras on another thread but quite a few of them are yet to come if they do come. But if you prefer something small and light, you need smaller sensors. For travelling, you may find cameras with very good image stabilization could come in handy when shooting in low light situations as then you can shoot at low ISO with no fear of getting blurred images.

I think not all mirror-less cameras have in-body-image-stabilization system and so you can use lenses from other manufacturers on them only that there's no image stabilization assistance available when you need it.
Sony's latest cameras allow image stabilization from even antique lenses...menu item to set focal length.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Mar 03, 2018 2:43 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
The a6300 is my light travel camera - very capable and small.  As Mike said, if a 24-105 type reach is enough, get the Sony Zeiss 16-70 and have everything you need in a single lens.  If you need to go longer I'd recommend the FE 70-300 which would be 105-450 in full frame terms.  The kit lenses are awful compared to what you are used to.  BTW you can get all of this stuff used and in mint condition from MPB if you don't want to pay full price  Who knows, you might actually get the 16-70 and 70-300 that I sold them :D
 

by DChan on Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:12 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
Mike in O wrote:
DChan wrote:From Thom Hogan (http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/  ):
One site reader sent me a "game over m4/3" message.

Not that I can tell. I keep my m4/3 kit around for one reason: it is a well scaled high-end camera that fits into a very tight bag.
E.J. has mentioned several advantages of mirror-less cameras on another thread but quite a few of them are yet to come if they do come. But if you prefer something small and light, you need smaller sensors. For travelling, you may find cameras with very good image stabilization could come in handy when shooting in low light situations as then you can shoot at low ISO with no fear of getting blurred images.

I think not all mirror-less cameras have in-body-image-stabilization system and so you can use lenses from other manufacturers on them only that there's no image stabilization assistance available when you need it.
Sony's latest cameras allow image stabilization from even antique lenses...menu item to set focal length.
With in-body-image-stabilization, you can use any lens, the antiques or the latest, with the camera body. I believe that's essentially what I said.
 

by Phil Shaw on Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:32 am
Phil Shaw
Forum Contributor
Posts: 99
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Member #:00106
I have the Sony a6500 with the Sony Zeiss 16-70. Its small and easy to carry (coming from a dslr), but I find it very frustrating to use (coming from a dslr), particularly the focusing. I think you might find the same. If I had been using it for the first time on Rhine cruise, it might well have ended up in water.
Phil Shaw
Essex, UK
[color=#008000][url]http://www.naturephotopro.com[/url][/color]
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:33 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Phil Shaw wrote:I have the Sony a6500 with the Sony Zeiss 16-70.  Its small and easy to carry (coming from a dslr), but I find it very frustrating to use (coming from a dslr), particularly the focusing.  I think you might find the same.  If I had been using it for the first time on Rhine cruise, it might well have ended up in water.
Hmm, frustrating in what way?  I've been using these cameras for years, no frustration whatsoever other than the illogical menus so i am curious...
 

by jrhoffman75 on Sun Mar 04, 2018 8:45 am
jrhoffman75
Forum Contributor
Posts: 71
Joined: 21 Nov 2003
Location: Conway, NH
I took that trip several years ago in the reverse direction. Great journey. I have a 1D and a fleet of L lenses, but took my Rebel with 10-18 and 18-135. Other than the day trip along the Rhine to see the castles the 10-18 and lower ranges of 18-135 was what I was shooting. In the towns and in the buildings wide is what you want.
 

by Brian K. on Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:08 am
User avatar
Brian K.
Lifetime Member
Posts: 913
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Virginia
Member #:00115
Thank you everyone for your feedback. I think I am going to go with the a6500. It has in camera stabilization, touch screen, and an (supposedly) improved menu.The Sony Zeiss 16-70 will be the way to go.

Thanks again everybody.
[b]Brian D. Kennedy[/b]
[b]NSN 0115[/b]
http://www.bdkennedy.com
 

by Bruce Sherman on Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:21 am
User avatar
Bruce Sherman
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4421
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Rockport, TX
Brian,

I have a Sony a6000 that I purchased for exactly the same reasons that got you thinking. IMHO, if you are interested in snapshots and photos you can share online, the two kit lenses are perfectly OK. Granted, they are not the quality you get with your 5DIV, but the body and kit lenses are infinitely more "carryable". When I purchased mine I bought it with the understanding that it would never replace my DSLR and that it would be used only for snapshots and sharing images with friends, family, etc. I have enough money wrapped up in my DSLR gear so I decided to take the frugal route with the Sony.

One important consideration - you will need extra batteries. B&H carries Watson batteries and small chargers at prices much lower than similar Sony stuff.
Bruce Sherman
[url]http://www.pbase.com/brucesherman[/url]
 

by Brian K. on Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:10 pm
User avatar
Brian K.
Lifetime Member
Posts: 913
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Virginia
Member #:00115
Bruce Sherman wrote:Brian,

I have a Sony a6000 that I purchased for exactly the same reasons that got you thinking. IMHO, if you are interested in snapshots and photos you can share online, the two kit lenses are perfectly OK. Granted, they are not the quality you get with your 5DIV, but the body and kit lenses are infinitely more "carryable". When I purchased mine I bought it with the understanding that it would never replace my DSLR and that it would be used only for snapshots and sharing images with friends, family, etc. I have enough money wrapped up in my DSLR gear so I decided to take the frugal route with the Sony.

One important consideration - you will need extra batteries. B&H carries Watson batteries and small chargers at prices much lower than similar Sony stuff.
Bruce,

Thanks for your advice. Something more to think about.

Brian
[b]Brian D. Kennedy[/b]
[b]NSN 0115[/b]
http://www.bdkennedy.com
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sun Mar 04, 2018 3:26 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Actually if you already take a battery to charge your phone from when you travel, you can charge the camera from that as the camera can be charged from the micro USB port.  In that case, you can just plug it in whenever you aren't using the camera.  The a6500 is even capable of shooting with the phone carge battery attached.
 

by Brian K. on Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:01 am
User avatar
Brian K.
Lifetime Member
Posts: 913
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Virginia
Member #:00115
E.J. Peiker wrote:Actually if you already take a battery to charge your phone from when you travel, you can charge the camera from that as the camera can be charged from the micro USB port.  In that case, you can just plug it in whenever you aren't using the camera.  The a6500 is even capable of shooting with the phone carge battery attached.
Thanks E.J. That's information that I did not come across in my searching around the net on the a6500. I use this wall charger/battery when traveling as well as an Anker Powercore 20000 Upgraded. 

https://www.anker.com/products/variant/ ... 0/A1621011

Brian
[b]Brian D. Kennedy[/b]
[b]NSN 0115[/b]
http://www.bdkennedy.com
 

by E.J. Peiker on Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:17 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Yup, that will charge the battery on any Sony mirrorless camera.  And even with the camera battery fully depleted you can run the camera off of that with it attached to the USB port.
 

by Brian K. on Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:05 pm
User avatar
Brian K.
Lifetime Member
Posts: 913
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Virginia
Member #:00115
E.J. Peiker wrote:The a6300 is my light travel camera - very capable and small.  As Mike said, if a 24-105 type reach is enough, get the Sony Zeiss 16-70 and have everything you need in a single lens.  If you need to go longer I'd recommend the FE 70-300 which would be 105-450 in full frame terms.  The kit lenses are awful compared to what you are used to.  BTW you can get all of this stuff used and in mint condition from MPB if you don't want to pay full price  Who knows, you might actually get the 16-70 and 70-300 that I sold them :D

E.J.,

What lenses are you currently using with your a6300 since you sold your 16-70 and 70-300? 

Brian
[b]Brian D. Kennedy[/b]
[b]NSN 0115[/b]
http://www.bdkennedy.com
 

by E.J. Peiker on Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:42 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
I am just using my full frame lenses when I use that camera. I have a Voigtlander 12mm (Also a Zeiss 12mm Touit which I would sell if interested), the 16-35 f/2.8 GM, 24-70 f/2.8 GM, and the 100-400 GM.
 

by Kari Post on Sun May 20, 2018 2:33 pm
User avatar
Kari Post
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7947
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Location: New Hampshire
Member #:00959
Disclaimer: I haven't read all the responses, just the original post. I am also not up to date on the newest technologies, but I wanted to share my experiences with advanced small cameras.

I think small mirrorless camera and newer compact technology systems are tempting, but nothing beats a DSLR. Unless weight and compact size are a significant factor, I would personally opt for a DSLR for most travels. I have used advanced point-and-shoots and micro 4/3rd system cameras for trips where I was biking or backpacking and therefore carrying my entire life with me for days or weeks at a time (I used a Canon G10 for a cross country bike trip back in 2009 and then a Panasonic GF-1 for several backpacking and multi-sport adventure trips in which I was responsible for a group and therefore carrying excess first aid supplies and extra gear so needed to compromise on the weight and space left for camera gear), and while those cameras were great compact systems I feel like my options were far more limited than they would have been with a DSLR, even a DSLR with a single compact lens. My coworker (who always pops into my office to ask for camera advice) recently bought a small mirrorless camera for something more portable while mountain biking and he's admitted that while he loves the form factor, he's disappointed in the results compared to his DSLRs and doesn't find the camera as intuitive to use. One of the gripes I had with the smaller systems was even thought it was possible to manually control the exposure, those settings were often buried in menus and it wasn't easy to quickly select aperture and shutter speed and shoot - you always had to dive into at least one menu to adjust one parameter. Hopefully this has changed.

Personally, if you are going on a river trip and not carrying your gear around a ton, I don't think the benefits of a slightly smaller system will be very necessary. Nice yes, but I think saving the extra $1000 for your vacation may be a better investment than a new system of camera and lenses that might have very specific and limited applications. With both of the smaller systems I had, they were useful for the trips but I ended up selling them shortly after because I found I didn't really use them otherwise and preferred the quality and control of my DSLRs. I will be traveling this year as well and am considering a new camera for the trip but am looking at a full frame DSLR without an integrated vertical grip with better autofocus and high ISO performance than what I have now. Even now I'm finding the smaller, mirrorless models tempting but I recognize that the application will be very limited for me. In most cases, I either want the controls and features of a DSLR or I need a quick shot with what I have on me, in which case my smartphone does the job. 
Kari Post, former NSN Editor 2009-2013
Check out my Website and Instagram
 

by Mike in O on Sun May 20, 2018 7:25 pm
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2673
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
Speaking as some one who has 5 dslr , they are horse and buggy compared to a car. Look for something that you can grow into...ILC that cost the for mentioned $1000 price tag are pretty slim pickings. I haven't bought a new lens for less than the mentioned price in a long time. Personally the Canon M, Sony 6xxx, ard Fuji are all good travel cameras, as well as the 1" sensor from every body. Full Frame has very heavy bodies and lenses which can be a pain to travel with unless you are EJ who has been known to hire another plane for his medium format set up.
 

by ChrisRoss on Mon May 21, 2018 5:15 am
ChrisRoss
Forum Contributor
Posts: 13182
Joined: 7 Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Kari Post wrote:Disclaimer: I haven't read all the responses, just the original post. I am also not up to date on the newest technologies, but I wanted to share my experiences with advanced small cameras.

I think small mirrorless camera and newer compact technology systems are tempting, but nothing beats a DSLR. Unless weight and compact size are a significant factor, I would personally opt for a DSLR for most travels. I have used advanced point-and-shoots and micro 4/3rd system cameras for trips where I was biking or backpacking and therefore carrying my entire life with me for days or weeks at a time (I used a Canon G10 for a cross country bike trip back in 2009 and then a Panasonic GF-1 for several backpacking and multi-sport adventure trips in which I was responsible for a group and therefore carrying excess first aid supplies and extra gear so needed to compromise on the weight and space left for camera gear), and while those cameras were great compact systems I feel like my options were far more limited than they would have been with a DSLR, even a DSLR with a single compact lens. My coworker (who always pops into my office to ask for camera advice) recently bought a small mirrorless camera for something more portable while mountain biking and he's admitted that while he loves the form factor, he's disappointed in the results compared to his DSLRs and doesn't find the camera as intuitive to use. One of the gripes I had with the smaller systems was even thought it was possible to manually control the exposure, those settings were often buried in menus and it wasn't easy to quickly select aperture and shutter speed and shoot - you always had to dive into at least one menu to adjust one parameter. Hopefully this has changed.

Personally, if you are going on a river trip and not carrying your gear around a ton, I don't think the benefits of a slightly smaller system will be very necessary. Nice yes, but I think saving the extra $1000 for your vacation may be a better investment than a new system of camera and lenses that might have very specific and limited applications. With both of the smaller systems I had, they were useful for the trips but I ended up selling them shortly after because I found I didn't really use them otherwise and preferred the quality and control of my DSLRs. I will be traveling this year as well and am considering a new camera for the trip but am looking at a full frame DSLR without an integrated vertical grip with better autofocus and high ISO performance than what I have now. Even now I'm finding the smaller, mirrorless models tempting but I recognize that the application will be very limited for me. In most cases, I either want the controls and features of a DSLR or I need a quick shot with what I have on me, in which case my smartphone does the job. 
I think you must be using different mirrorless cameras to what I'm used to, no experience with the Sony's, but I use Olympus now for underwater work and the ease of use is great and extremely customisable.  You basically have two dials which you can assign any function to  one at the shutter finger and the other at your thumb.  You can have shutter speed and aperture on the dials and then flick a switch to get ISO on one and exp comp on the other dial.  You can also set it up so that in Av you aperture on one and exp comp on the other and Tv could shutter speed and exp comp.  Changing modes is a lockable dial.   You rarely have to dive into the menus except setup custom functions or format a card. 

I'm now looking to expand with a couple more lenses to take only the Olympus when I'm traveling, particularly on dive trips.  I now have the EM-1 MkII and it does everything a DSLR can do and the Oly pro lenses are very sharp from wide open.  I previously had the EM-5MkII which  only lacks the great AF performance and frame rate of the M1 MkII, so instance it wasn't a birds in flight camera.  They don't have the big sensor, but I find for what I'm doing the quality is more than adequate. 
Chris Ross
Sydney
Australia
http://www.aus-natural.com   Instagram: @ausnaturalimages  Now offering Fine Art printing Services
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
30 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group