Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Best mirrorless FF camera body for MF lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I am a hobby photographer and antique lens collector and user. It was a big stretch for me financially to go from eos 60d to a7ii and I have no regrets (well only that I could not stretch the budget enough for a killer super wide before my Africa trip). My percentage of "keepers" has at least doubled. I tried the canon 100-400L with ea4 adapter and it lagged and hunted for af. With a 70-400L sony it is very quick.IQ is quite good. Went from a 24-105L to an ugly 24-70 vario-sonnar 2.8 and wow. Zeiss IQ on my copy is outstanding. The legacy glass I have tried so far has given really nice images. My response to the OP? Sony a7rii if you can afford it, if not sell a few lenses if you must but at least get the a7ii.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Uhoh7, What about Leica ?
Leica users have hard times, haven't they ?

About compressed and uncompressed Sony raws, you will see that nobody will be able to distinguish between pictures in real life.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:

The SL is right in their face really. Make a nice FF body, EVIL, with good quality and about the size of the A7


the SL has the size and the weight of a Sony A99... just perfect for the tiny M and M39 lenses Wink


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The discussion is starting to amuse myself. Fact is that there is presently only one manufacturer in existence who is producing cameras as requested by the OP, namely Sony. Leitz is almost fulfilling the criteria but would be out of budget for most of the folks anyway. The shortcomings of the Sony camera are well known already as they have been discussed in depth.
The remaining question is only whether one is prepared to live with those shortcomings or not. For some people it doesn't play any role whether they are able to use any RF lenses or whether RAW files are compressed in a lossy way or not. It maybe also a matter of taste whether it's a good idea to buy a new camera and to send it around the globe for modification. I certainly won't do that. Especially because I would loose any guarantee from the original manufacturers side and I personally prefer to buy only new cameras for similar reasons.
Remains the question if it makes sense for the OP to migrate to FF or not.
Obviously many of the folks here have different needs and different perceptions. For me it's rather clear that there will be never any camera which is able to suit everybody's needs or taste, although it would really be interesting if somebody manages to built a camera equipped with a FF sensor with a short register distance and without AA-filter which is able to cope with most of the old legacy lenses including the RF ones. I think such a camera would have a rather high potential to sell quite well. I still believe that this would be possible, maybe I'm wrong. I don't really know.
Until this will eventually happen I will continue to use different cameras for different tasks. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A7S should be found cheaper after they announced A7S2

crazy iso for slower classic lenses Smile


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think the OP's questions have pretty much been answered by now, but I'd like to address a different topic that will have a good deal of effect on the final image outcome. I have a Sony, but it is a NEX 7, a crop body. However, it comes with the Sony software, which, chances are, is similar to -- if not the same as -- the software that comes with the Sony FF models. And one thing I've found out from visiting one of the Sony E-mount forums is that nobody, and I mean nobody -- well, at the forum at least -- uses the Sony software. And I can understand why. It's crap. Plain and simple.

I've done a bit of searching for a good raw to .jpg converter for Sony images and I've discovered that Photoshop v6 works best. I don't use Lightroom, so it may work well also, but PS6, combined with a good noise suppression plug-in like Noise Ninja, does the best job of exposure and contrast adjustment, sharpening, and noise control of any the products out there. PS6's noise control is good, but NN is better I think. PS's raw converter does an outstanding job of exposure correction and also has a very good sharpening routine that does not add a lot of noise to the image, as long as it's used judiciously.

So, whichever way you decide do go, you should realize you're only halfway there after you've captured your images. Next comes the sometimes daunting task of getting those images down such that they look like what you saw when you captured them. I just finished converting some 700 images I captured at an airshow a couple weekends ago and, even with PS's routines, it can be slow going. But it's been worth it.

Oh, and regarding whichever Sony you wind up with, if it were me, I'd be inclined toward one of the models with a high megapixel count. Reason is, I've had to substantially crop many of these 700-some-odd images, but because the NEX 7 is a 24.3mp camera, I was able to pull off these crops without running out of image before I had the crops the way I wanted them. Just one other thing to think about.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Appreciate your post, cooltouch, and I agree available software is very important. Also thanks to other recent posters here. Your responses are of high interest and they are without exception helpful.

On software:

Obviously we MF lens fans need software which is "lens neutral" and which does not punish us for having chosen (vintage or non-vintage) MF glass. My own lenses are without exception of the vintage variety. But I've always been intrigued by, and I continue to follow with great interest, modern MF lenses which are very much on topic in this forum in my view.

Point is, whether it is intended or not, we are harmed when a camera body manufacturer too eagerly slants their software for sake of accommodating their own lenses, at the expense of those of us who make other choices. The harm grows to punitive levels should such action be taken, in essence, in secret!


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
I think the OP's questions have pretty much been answered by now, but I'd like to address a different topic that will have a good deal of effect on the final image outcome. I have a Sony, but it is a NEX 7, a crop body. However, it comes with the Sony software, which, chances are, is similar to -- if not the same as -- the software that comes with the Sony FF models. And one thing I've found out from visiting one of the Sony E-mount forums is that nobody, and I mean nobody -- well, at the forum at least -- uses the Sony software. And I can understand why. It's crap. Plain and simple.


Don't the FF cameras come with Capture One for Sony?
(I have one, but have never installed the included software as I already have Capture One Pro)


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Unfortunately the first tests of the SL, on DP Review, don't look very promising (at least not up to my expectations)...
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9955093579/leica-sl-typ601-in-depth-camera-review

However, the sample images are quite appealing.

Last edited by dan_ on Thu Oct 29, 2015 9:40 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Don't the FF cameras come with Capture One for Sony?
(I have one, but have never installed the included software as I already have Capture One Pro)


Dunno. I d/l'd the version for Sony and can't get anywhere with it, just trying things out. I mean, I click on obvious icons for loading in images, and, in one situation, it doesn't recognize the Sony raw files, and in another, it loads them -- one at a time, mind you -- into a catalog that promptly disappears. Now, I ask you -- why am I forced to load images one at a time into a catalog? So anyway, whenever I get stuck (which is often), I try clicking on a question mark icon and it takes me to a web page that starts a long, protracted dialog on the way their software is so intelligently laid out and how easy it is to use. Yeah, right. No thanks, I'll pass.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
dan_ wrote:
Unfortunately the first tests of the SL, on DP Review, doesn't look very promising (at least not up to my expectations)...
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9955093579/leica-sl-typ601-in-depth-camera-review

However, the sample images are quite appealing.


Looks pretty poor to me. If you're going to charge a huge sum for a camera, it needs to be at least as good as the competition.

My 6 year old a850 with it's 24mp FF sensor has nothing to fear from this latest Leica. Smile


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 3:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
dan_ wrote:
Unfortunately the first tests of the SL, on DP Review, doesn't look very promising (at least not up to my expectations)...
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9955093579/leica-sl-typ601-in-depth-camera-review

However, the sample images are quite appealing.


The sample images are up to the standard of any comparable 24MP/FF cameras. Nothing really sensational. From this point of view I didn't expect anything special anyway. The only interesting point would be the compatibility with old legacy lenses, particularly the RF ones. Wink
As we all know, the sensor is only part of the story and what I don't like about those tests on DPreview, they are always comparing different sensor/lens combinations. It would be much more meaningful if they would use the same lens on two or more different cameras. At least for us MF-lens users that would say much more about the cameras capabilities. In this example from DPreview you never know what the more influencing factor is for the final picture. I therefore always see those tests very skeptic, sometimes not really helpful and often almost misleading (be it on purpose or not, I don't know).

Everything else is mainly a matter of taste and budget anyway. Wink


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 4:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Best full frame what you can afford.. Smile damn I can't afford any so still film is my best full frame, sensor is interchangeable , many available in my fridge Smile


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 4:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Best full frame what you can afford.. Smile damn I can't afford any so still film is my best full frame, sensor is interchangeable , many available in my fridge Smile


That's also my way out if I want to use my ultra wide RF lenses on FF without color fringing or blurred corners.
The Bessa R2 is still a very nice camera and the Fujichrome Velvia is my favorite "FF sensor" in this case. Wink


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 7:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Best full frame what you can afford.. Smile damn I can't afford any so still film is my best full frame, sensor is interchangeable , many available in my fridge Smile


Like 1


PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Best full frame what you can afford.. Smile damn I can't afford any so still film is my best full frame, sensor is interchangeable , many available in my fridge Smile


Like 1 small

More and more this is looking like the FF answer for MF lens users in 2015. Perhaps in future things will be different. We need a wide variety of much less expensive FF digital camera bodies . . . which nevertheless work great.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm still waiting for somebody to come up with a "digital film" module that can be inserted into most any old 35mm SLR, converting it to FF digital. Been waiting for 15 years and counting . . .


PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I'm still waiting for somebody to come up with a "digital film" module that can be inserted into most any old 35mm SLR, converting it to FF digital. Been waiting for 15 years and counting . . .

Yeah, would be great!
Tuzki with lens


PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have recently purchased a Lens Turbo II for my Fuji X-T1 and it's miles better than the original version. Doesn't quite match the output of my Canon EOS 6D (and is cropped ever so slightly) but much better than expected Smile


PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2015 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
I have recently purchased a Lens Turbo II for my Fuji X-T1 and it's miles better than the original version. Doesn't quite match the output of my Canon EOS 6D (and is cropped ever so slightly) but much better than expected Smile


Fascinating stuff. I was unfamiliar with Lens Turbo II. A chap in Denmark also likes the device:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/07/31/lens-turbo-ii-review-by-henrik-kristensen/

And he agrees the latest version is much superior to the original.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3