Thanks.

I have a couple E-mount Sony cameras. 5n & a6300

Lenses, always a tough choice.

I've had a lot of fun with a 12mm manual lens. But then I hate that it's not using the 6300 super fast focus. :-/

Since you have two E mounts you ought to check out the fun over at this site:

https://www.talkemount.com/

I mainly use MF lenses with mine.

Every camera system is a tradeoff in one way or another. I shot Canon film SLR for 30 years and when all my gear went obsolete I switched to an advanced digital compact zoom and waited. Two years ago we booked a trip to Africa and I knew the compact zoom wouldn't cut it. I dug deep into the current technology and chose an Olympus 4/3 mirrorless system for my new travel camera. So far I am happy with my choice and tradeoffs.

Pros: Small and lightweight with very feature rich creative capability, high resolution sensor, excellent lens system shared with Panasonic. Silent shooting for wildlife. Complete system all in for $1500 and fits in a small backpack.

Cons: Autofocus is not as fast or tack sharp as a Canon DSLR. Full frame DSLR is still better in very low light.

Other options I looked at:
Canon FF DSLR- great camera, too big, too much $$
Nikon FF DSLR- Same
Sony A7 or 6300- Excellent sensor, limited lens system.


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1521780267.jpg

Question? Other than through lens viewing, is there any other reason for SLR?

I think mirrorless is the future. Educate me please.

LWJ - In answer to your question - None that I can think of. Take a look at the site I linked to in post #42 above. Mirrorless is/has surpassed SLR technology as far as I'm concerned. I only wish I could afford the latest Sony A7iii or A9 and a native lens or two. As it stands, my Sony's do what I wanted them to do in the first place and that is allow me to make use of all the old lenses I inherited. So far, so good and they're a blast to use on the cameras. The best part is, I have image stabilization with each and every one of them when used on my A7ii. Yes, they are manual focusing, but that just makes it a more 'film' like experience when shooting. It slows me down, gets me more involved with taking the picture.
Hope this helps.

So far a Full Frame DSLR still has a better/faster/more precise autofocus. If you shoot in very low light like wedding receptions, or do a lot of sports and wildlife photography and need pinpoint autofocus right now, I think Canon is still king. Nearly all the pro African safari and pro sports photogs shoot Canon for that reason. Other than that, mirrorless is hard to beat in terms of getting great shots.

There are workarounds and I can work with mirrorless autofocus just fine. When in doubt I choose manual focus and range my shot in advance.

You might want to check out this thread Cajundaddy:

https://www.talkemount.com/threads/beach-handball-pan-am-nationals-2018-shot-with-sony-a9-and-fe-90mm-lens.17952/#post-145823

I think the cameras on the sidelines will be changing over to mirrorless faster than you think.

Those are pretty good but relatively easy shots with a very predictable shooting distance. I can and do shoot sports with my Oly mirrorless but side by side, the Canon AF is better. Much better on a race car closing at high speed or cheetah chasing an impala towards you at 60mph.

Eric. did the camera sell?

and second Que..is that YELLOW CAR YOURS!!??

Not yet. That was my car. She's gone to a new owner. You can see my build thread here if interested.

I'd like to see more of your observatory. That pic you showed in the other thread was hard to tell how big it actually is.

I'll post a few more over there.

maybe we could talk?

i really dont understand enough to make a judgement.

in my (feeble) mind i was thinking just a camera body and one lens..a fixed moderate wide angle.

my old days, i used a Leica M6 with a bad ass 28mm lens exclusively. i dont know what a 28mm conversion is with these new cameras. 20?

Yeah, 1.5x crop factor on this chip. My 14mm acts like a 21mm.

thanks bud.

i wore my wife down with good home cooking, attentive-lovin, whispering sweet nothings and walking the dog daily and picking up ALL the animal crap.

i am now CAMERA shopping!!

Right on! I've been doing the switch back to DSLR and full frame. Loved my Fuji Mirrorless but it was a little small or my hands.

i just drank two big cups of coffee catching up on that thread..HOLY kamolee!! you were insane!! such great work!! hats off, and i have no idea how i missed that thread. i failed painting patio furniture..what you did was crazy!!

if i did that, my funeral would be so expensive, cuz i would be buried in that thing..:)

LOL, thanks. I really enjoyed that build, needed some garage therapy ya know. Learned a lot!

The very expensive very bulky full frame sensor top level SLRs are still out front by a lot if you want crazy high megapixel low noise images. The Canon 5D Mark 5 and such cameras shot giant resolution very low noise images. We use a 5D in our aerial photography for construction projects monthly flights. The pilot can circle a site with a 70 to 200 MM L glass lens and not have to worry about exact cropping. He can shoot a little wide and then I do the final crop in Photoshop when I open the RAW file.

The camera and lens is over 7 pounds, so it is not something you want to lug on vacation for happy snaps of the family.

The images open up way bigger than the client wants most of the time so I re-sample them down to make then something that fits the format they want. Some clients want a large (40x60) print of a site to hang in the office when the project is finished. The resolution and sharpness is remarkable when I go back to the raw image. We used to have to soot with a Pentax 6x7 with 120 roll film and still not get the clarity and sharpness that modern digital full frame sensors provide.

There is really no reason to lug the giant cameras around to get the little bit better image unless you are truly getting published and you have clients that will pay for it.