Photographers: if you were starting from zero

[holliscx]

Had my camera gear stolen in the States this summer and just got fully reimbursed. I left my bags behind the front desk and an employee was charged with felony grand theft larceny. It was a long excruciating process but I finally got it sorted.

I had a Canon dslr with some L glass. I was going on self-assignment to shoot cyclocross races and really enjoyed it otherwise regular shooting street photography plus my family (kids).

I'm looking hard at the Fuji X-Pro 2 which is coming out middle of next month. One of the things I do with digital is spray images and think I would do better to slow down and focus on composing the shot more versus blasting away. Less is more. Some is just inexperience. I wouldn't consider the Fuji a sports camera but a lot of the behind the scenes color + atmosphere that I'm best at plus some racing could be shot well.

Something about the Sony A7R ii doesn't grab me when I hold it. The build quality feels inferior in my hand compared to the Fuji. Same goes for the X-Pro 1 versus the other Fuji bodies: I like the feel of the X-Pro 1 in my hand best.

If I go back to Canon I would probably get a 7D mark ii with the same glass I had on my 60D. I've never shot full frame. My first camera was an AE-1 which is still a benchmark.

Since I'm starting from zero I feel like it might be the right time to try mirrorless. I don't shoot sports professionally but enjoy shooting cycling. Not sure I should make my purchase decision based on sports as I know I would be happy shooting sports or anything with a disposable if that's all I had. I think the Fuji may slow me down and I would carry it out with me more than the dslr which is one of the reasons I'm considering waiting on the X-Pro 2.

Any thoughts from Rohner and the other photographers out there?

[Bobonli]

I think you need to sort out the sports part first. I don't see or know of many people using the Fujis for sports shooting. I think it has to do with the buffers and fps etc. Also the range of glass is not as developed as Nikon and Canon. That said Chris Burhard seems to do alright with surfing photos with the Sony cameras. I work with a guy who is a contract shooter for the Jets football team and he says for sports Canon and Nikon are still the standard bearers.

I have a ton of SLR stuff accumulated over 25 years of serious hobbyism. I incorporate some of my shooting in my work as an educator and educational publications. If it all disappeared tomorrow, I would rent a full frame Nikon and Canon ( not the high end $8k cameras), and a couple of the Fuji bodies and do a compare & contrast to see what I liked in terms of image quality and ergonomics. And I'd look at the lens offerings. What I need now in my life is a lot different than what I bought when I used to shoot birds and climbing/ skiing etc. I have a case of Nikon glass and most of it sits unused. It has sentimental value but I really should sell it and move on. I'm just not into hauling a ton of shit around anymore; I'd rather have a good camera and maybe two lenses. The Fujis are appealing for this type of use.

Don't forget to add video into the calculus. Will you want to shoot video? Is flash work important to the point you'd buy into a system based in its flash capabilities? The only reason I stick with my Nikon gear is the flash system. I suppose I could learn another system but I'm comfortable with it and can make a nice image with minimal fuss.

My gut tells me I'd end up with a Fuji camera and learn how to adapt the Nikon flashes.

My advice to you is to rent a bunch of stuff and pick the one that makes you smile when you hold the camera and look at the images it produced.

[colker]

Buy something small. The smallest camera that does what you want. Small and light so you will carry it around and bond w/ it.
Shoot as you feel like: more, less, minimal shooting, tons of pics. As long as you keep shooting you will improve and find what you want t do w/ photography.
Chose a photographer and study his work. Better.. fall in love w/ his work. Shoot pics that have a dialogue w/ those you love. Good photographers, filmakers, painters etc.. are always "talking" w/ other fellow artists.
Have less equipment. Undergeared. Chose a focal lens you like and shoot only w/ it. If you are not a pro you can do it. If you are the best pro in the business, you can do it. .. Less gear lets you concentrate on the scene you are shooting.
While editing, try everything from photoshop or lightroom. Have no prejudices against effects. Don't be afraid of something you may once have considered vulgar or bad taste. Try it. Try differente things and very important, again: under geared. Less camera , concentrate on the scene.

[joosttx]

Gen one Sony RX-100

[j44ke]

With sports, the biggest challenge is focus at speed. Something coming at you against a complicated field of patterns and dark and light. I can't think of any camera/lens setup other than Canon or Nikon that focuses quickly and accurately enough to shoot sports effectively. Plus you need fast focusing lenses, so Canon and Nikon again.

But it sounds like you might want to try something smaller. I think Stefan shoots the Fuji TX1. I think that is a great camera. It isn't a sports camera but it would come close. I think the rangefinder-style (none of them are true rangefinders) cameras from Fuji are too imprecise with their focusing speed, though with each iteration they get better. But the TX1 seems to be a lot better camera than the rangefinder-style models. No doubt the lenses are terrific optically.

I've used the Sony A7 as a rental - images are amazing. I have a Canon 5D - the images are amazing. One of these days Sony will build a camera that autofocuses as well as a Canon body. Then that camera will be the best body on the planet. The newer Sony bodies in the A7 series (designated with a II following the name) have the unique ability to focus other manufacturer's (like Canon for exampLe) lenses with confirmation and aperture control, and they have some innovative sensors with extraordinary image rendering capabilities. They've also increased the number of focusing points and cross focus points and and and - but I don't know if the focusing is truly top notch yet.

Like I said, I have a Canon 5D. The best lenses made for Canon are the Zeiss EF lenses. They are manual focus though and that won't work for sports without a lot of trial and error or incredible skill. Sony is famous for spending all their time on developing their bodies and forgetting to build lenses. As a result, Canon has way more lens options than Sony, but that's only an advantage if you need a lot of lenses or want a particular focal length or zoom that Sony doesn't make. Of course, now you can use Canon lenses on the new Sonys so...

The nice thing about all these full frame cameras is the incredible crop-ability. I can keep slicing stuff off the image and I still get something that can be blown up and put on the wall without the detail going fuzzy or soft. Canon's full frame sensors are better than their L lenses are in terms of detail resolution. Thus the Zeiss manual focus EF lenses.

If I had to do it over? I would have sold my film Leicas before the first digital Leica M came out and stuck the cash in an account that earned interest and then waited until the most recent Leica M digital came out and bought one of those and used it with my lenses. But oh well.

What I would do in reality is go rent one of the Sony Alpha 7 7S or 7R II bodies and a nice Sony Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 lens (or their 35mm f1.4 prime) and shoot the mess out of it. I'd try it with a couple L lenses as well. See how it focused, how fast it was to work with, whether I got frustrated, etc. Then I would decide whether I'd buy one or forget it and get another Canon 5D and a bunch of L lenses.

[ericpmoss]

There is so much good glass and so many good sensors out there, I'd say none suck when it comes to image quality. What will make the biggest difference is what you noticed yourself -- if it doesn't feel right, it won't be fun, no matter the potential image quality -- it will be distracting at best. If the menus are inscrutable, you'll hate it. If it doesn't have a good EVF and enough diopter correction, you won't capture the moment. If it doesn't balance and grip right, you won't hold it steady. Go to a high end store, pay the premium and get to try out a bunch of models -- only you can judge which trade-offs are worth it. I did so and totally changed what I thought was worth paying for. Also, maybe two cameras are the right thing -- an easy point-n-shoot for family snaps and a big rig for things you are willing to slow down for.

[joosttx]

Moments are fleeting and get spooked easily . It's best have something that is quick and cryptic to capture them.

[ericpmoss]

In that case I'd buy a Leica S or SL. It's outrageously priced, but it feels insanely great compared to a D810, and is a joy.

[holliscx]

Don't forget to add video into the calculus.

Good point I always forget about video but cherish the ones I have

[robin3mj]

Have you done any analysis of your photo library to see what focal lengths you shoot with mostly? Are you a zoom or a fixed lens kind of guy?
If you decide to go the mirrorless route, this may be helpful in choosing which system to go with.
The Sony A7 seems to be gaining a ton of momentum in the DSLR replacement category though who knows how much of that is legit versus paid reviews.

Do you need to get the SI-cover worthy shot every time or is your style more environmental/atmospheric in nature? Behind the scenes etc.
Take a look at what Hung Mai is doing at CX races with just a 28mm Ricoh.

Actually, regardless of what system you go with, reserve $600 and get the Ricoh GR as a pocket camera. I've found mine so much fun to use that my Micro 4/3 sits on the shelf more often than not. The latest firmware makes it pretty fast and the newer one has a deeper buffer so you do have the ability to hold the shutter down to spray and pray when needed- helpful if you have kids running around.

[Bobonli]

The Sony A7 seems to be gaining a ton of momentum in the DSLR replacement category though who knows how much of that is legit versus paid reviews.

I'm going to take Matt's point and run with it. Be careful with "reviews" and hashtag references to certain gear on the web. A lot of stuff out there with people praising this or that is because they are product "ambassadors" who are writing nice stuff about gear because they are compensated (one way or another) to generate clicks and sales. When you see an ordinary guy on instagram get a new $5000 Leica every month and praise the heck out of it (even though other reviews say it's faulty)……he may not be an ordinary guy at all but an ambassador there to hype the product.

In the end nothing replaces your own product testing.

[Len J]

Start with what you want to shoot and how you want to shoot it and find the best system to support that.

One size does not fit all...... IME. It's about balancing priorities. There is no camera or system that ticks 100% of the boxes.

Here is a good article on choosing a system in mirror-less, but the same logic applies to DSLR. How To Decide Between Systems | Sans Mirror | Thom Hogan

I'm still shooting a Nikon D-3, because nothing I've tried has given me a large enough benefit FOR WHAT I SHOOT to make the change worth it to me economically...but that is me.

I would also rent whatever you are going to buy before you buy... control systems matter.... I tried the SONY, and absolutely hate their controls...others love them.

[j44ke]

For the smallest package with the biggest wallop, I'd recommend:

Canon 6D

and

Canon 24-70 F4.0 L zoom

or

Canon 17-40 F4.0 L zoom

and to throw into your bag

Canon 28mm f2.8 IS USM

or

Canon EF 35mm f2 IS USM.

The advantage of the Canon sensors is the incredible performance at high ISO. So you can use their F4.0 "pocket" zooms at 3200ISO to get action shots without noticeable image degradation (there is some, but not visible on the interwebs and barely noticeable in even large prints - looks like film grain at worst.) Those two zooms are quite small compared to the f2.8 versions and very durable. Wouldn't be too bad to have both, because even though they overlap, the ends of their ranges where they don't give you architectural interiors in the case of the 17-40 and semi-portrait length in the case of the 24-70.

The two EF lenses are solidly usable better quality lenses with the addition of image stabilization (IS) and Canon's USM focusing motor which is fast and quiet. 28/35 are (to me at least) the workhorse focal lengths for travel photography and what I would call quotidian shooting - I see that, I shoot that - or photographic diary shots. Fast quiet and wide enough to get a nice sense of context. Crank the ISO for low light.

Final recommendation to consider - I've traveled before and shot purely with my Canon 5D + their 40mm f2.8 pancake lens. Sort of a neither nor lens (neither wide nor not wide), 40mm is one of my favorite focal lengths. It can provide a bit of an aesthetic challenge you don't have to wrestle with if using a wider lens, but it is fast small and quick. And with it mounted, the Canon 5D (or the 6D) is merely a bulky point-and-shoot with a lovely sensor.

Note: There appear to be rebates on all the Canon lenses right now, and there may be some on bodies as well. Or combinations thereof.

Canon 5D + 40mm f2.8 in low light & Vincent Black Shadow



If you click on the image above, you should be able to go to the image on Flickr and look at it enlarged. The 40mm lens has a nice sharp/soft balance that is atmospheric rather than irritating or clumsy, and if necessary, I can crank the sharpness post-process and it doesn't ruin the image. But the slight soft glow on the chrome here is nice IMHO.