FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Stick with A-mount or move to E-mount or ...?

Page  <12
Author
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Online
Posts: 1358
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 June 2017 at 20:27
I tried out cameras today--the A68 and some Nikons. I used an old, low-end Canon DSLR at event on Sunday along with my A65, and decided I am done with the A65's dim EVF and awkward rear LCD. I am using the A5000 for most everything else these days.

Nikon has pretty much erased any advantage SLTs used to have--even without dual-pixel AF. Nikon's new AF-P lenses focus well in live-view especially with the touch screen. They are very fast using phase-detect. I don't understand the A68 at all--it is big, heavy, and slow with poor displays. The AF system in the A68 didn't seem as good--maybe this was due to the lenses. The D5500 is smaller than many mirrorless cameras--it is smaller than the micro Four-Thirds Panasonic G85.

Nikon is selling the D5500 with two AF-P lenses for the same price as the A68 body-only. The non-VR AF-P 70-300 F4.5-6.3 was fast. Sure, it would be nice to have the VR. It would be nice to be brighter. The FE 70-300 G OSS in probably better, but it is $1100.

I also tried the D500 too--not for me. They didn't have a D7200 or D7500 to try.

Edited by QuietOC - 15 June 2017 at 20:30
Sony SLT A65 30M 35/1.8 50/1.8 16-50 16-80 16-105 18-135 18-250 55-200 55-300
Sony A5000 LA-EA1 16/2.8 20/2.8, 16-50PZ
Minolta Maxxum 70 24/2.8 28/2.8 50/1.7 85/2.8 100M 135/2.8 100-300D
 



Back to Top
kefkafloyd View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 July 2006
Country: United States
Location: Massachusetts
Status: Offline
Posts: 2322
Post Options Post Options   Quote kefkafloyd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 June 2017 at 22:16
The D5500 is a lot of things, but it's not smaller than a G85.

The GH5, on the other hand, is actually pretty similar sized, except without a mirror box protrusion.
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Online
Posts: 12971
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 June 2017 at 22:41
Originally posted by kefkafloyd kefkafloyd wrote:

The D5500 is a lot of things, but it's not smaller than a G85.

Apparently some dimensions are smaller - and it weighs a bit less. Not a huge difference either way.
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Online
Posts: 7611
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 June 2017 at 23:16
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

Nikon is selling the D5500 with two AF-P lenses for the same price as the A68 body-only. The non-VR AF-P 70-300 F4.5-6.3 was fast. Sure, it would be nice to have the VR. It would be nice to be brighter. The FE 70-300 G OSS in probably better, but it is $1100.
Not quite...

For starters, the D5500 is hard to find in The Netherlands - you can find the D5300 for the same money as the A68 and the D5600 for a lot more.

At B&H the A68 with 18-55 is the same price as the D5500 with 18-55. I'm sure you can get a special deal somewhere - but not in The Netherlands.

Amazingly, the A68 is cheaper in The Netherlands then in the US

Worst thing, topic starter wanted full frame, not crop

Edit: I held some D5x00 cameras and I don't understand their size. I thought it too small and cramped (YMMF). The D3x00 being small makes sense, but I would want something more substantial a step up. If I want a small camera, I'll pick up an A6000.....

Edited by addy landzaat - 15 June 2017 at 23:19
Das Bild ist ein Modell der Wirklichkeit - Wittgenstein
Back to Top
kefkafloyd View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 July 2006
Country: United States
Location: Massachusetts
Status: Offline
Posts: 2322
Post Options Post Options   Quote kefkafloyd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 June 2017 at 01:21
Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:

Originally posted by kefkafloyd kefkafloyd wrote:

The D5500 is a lot of things, but it's not smaller than a G85.

Apparently some dimensions are smaller - and it weighs a bit less. Not a huge difference either way.


Duly noted, I was thinking it was the same size as the D5300 but it turns out it's significantly smaller, mostly by reducing the size of the grip and cutting out any left-shoulder space for a dial. It sure worked, it makes the a99ii (an already pretty compact body) look like a brick in comparison.
Back to Top
Aavo View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 03 April 2013
Country: Estonia
Location: Tallinn
Status: Offline
Posts: 4524
Post Options Post Options   Quote Aavo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 June 2017 at 08:21
Welcome!

Aps-c can be your next companion for 5 years too, if
a) you are not strongly for greather bockeh,
b) you are not wanting to shoot in very low light,
c) you have not aim to use old MF legasy lenses.

I have been digital aps-c user from 2006 and no regret, because a) b) c) are not so important for me.

I started with KM5D, then replaced it with a700. Mirrorless was my next step (NEX7) and now a6500. a6500 is on the expensive end but with IBIS. If to add better low light capability and quick enough AF, with 2 nice basic lenses SEL 24/1,8cz (from 2012) and SEL 18-105/4 G OSS PZ (from 2014, not expensive lens) I can do most I like. I have now some more - Samyang E12/2 (MF) and Sigma E60/2,8, both not expensive lenses, and I am equiped for every day use from the edge to the edge (engineering, familiy, travel, sports). With 4x and 10x magnification filters some nise close-ups can be done too. Light and small gear, less expensive, great enough image quality and handling.

Edited by Aavo - 16 June 2017 at 09:56
e-mount aps-c
 



Back to Top
nandbytes View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: London
Status: Offline
Posts: 2126
Post Options Post Options   Quote nandbytes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 June 2017 at 09:53
D5500 while lighter is not smaller than A7RII which is FF with IBIS!!

D5500 - 124 x 97 x 70 mm, volume = 0.84 L
A7RII - 126.9 x 95.7 x 60.3 mm, volume = 0.73 L

DSLRs and small shouldn't be used in same sentence (apart from may be SL1)
my flickr
A7RII, A7 (full-spectrum), NEX-5n
Back to Top
artuk View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 06 July 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 3351
Post Options Post Options   Quote artuk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 June 2017 at 09:59
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:


Edit: I held some D5x00 cameras and I don't understand their size. I thought it too small and cramped (YMMF). The D3x00 being small makes sense, but I would want something more substantial a step up. If I want a small camera, I'll pick up an A6000.....


Making existing products slightly smaller in Canon and Nikons way of trying to respond to the growing popularity of mirrorless - but without fully understanding what consumers actually like about mirrorless, and therefore not understanding that their products dont satisfy that need. For example, A7 type cameras are popular with some because of the ability to mount almost any lens. A Nikon SLR doesn't meet that need. Canon and particularly Nikon are flailing around "responding" with things that customers dont really want and then being surprised when they aren't successful.

I'm actually all for smaller SLR bodies as Digital made everything get bigger. A Dynax 7 film camera, an excellent and good handling camera, was considerably smaller and much lighter than an Alpha 700 which only had an APSC sensor, and the A900 was even bigger again. I'm happy to see some enthusiast and pro type cameras start to be reasonable sizes again.   
Art
Back to Top
Eclipse View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 13 February 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 1636
Post Options Post Options   Quote Eclipse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 June 2017 at 10:48
The Dynax 7 was a grand little camera, but once I got the Dynax 9, I only used the 7 for my lightweight needs. With heavy lenses, the Dynax 9 with the grip was just superb, it balanced like it was half the weight. I also felt it was so robust I could probably hammer nails in with it and it wouldn't blink an eyelid- I have read of one falling down a high concrete embankment onto rocks and being unscathed, and even of a reporter who used one for self-defence in a riot and it still worked fine afterwards.
Even with the A900 you really can't begin to say that.


Weight aside, I still think the 9 was the best film camera I have ever used by a mile.
Back to Top
Aavo View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 03 April 2013
Country: Estonia
Location: Tallinn
Status: Offline
Posts: 4524
Post Options Post Options   Quote Aavo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 June 2017 at 14:47
If about film era, Canon A-1 was my best SLR. The second I was using, was very simple Canon AF35M (full frame with 38mm F2,8 lens, auto metering and focus). It was lovely and I found more and more using this second one because of light weight and small size. Great digital mirrorless is something I was waiting lot and I am happy to have it now. a700 has been very big for me.   
e-mount aps-c
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Camera Talk Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Find us on Google+

Feel free to contact us if needed.