a7 s II or a7 r II If I'm more interested in video mode

>>3066624
A7s ii smashes the r for video as the r uses line skipping.

A7rii smashes the s for stills because bsi & resolution & dynamic range & high iso performance.

>>3066625
Is the a7s ii not better for low life stills?

>>3066629
Nope, the a7s range are video cameras, their stills performance is pretty awful and its low light performance is actually nothing to write home about.

It's been a class leader for low light video as it uses the whole of the ff sensor with no binning.

>>3066624
a9

>>3066638
A9 lacks a Log gamma, so you'll be losing highlight and shadow detail in videos, which is pretty shitty since it would otherwise have been very good for this. It also costs $2000 more than the A7SII, that's big chunk of change.

>>3066642
A9 hasn't been released fully yet, it has a couple of surprises in store for video codecs. It was disabled on the test days because there's no point in showing off a fancy new codec if no software handles it yet.

>>3066624
>buyin sony
its like you wanted to buy lenses every 5 years

>>3066646
A mount is over 30 years old and still going strong.

Only nikon have a longer lasting mount and they've only managed that by having multiple variations that prevents some compatibility. (There's 10 different versions of pentaxs k mount, their system is a dead mess).

>>3066624
>sony
good afternoon poopco

>>3066624
A9R and A9S are around the corner, wait.

>>3066681
I'm waiting for the A9Rii, should be out this Summer

>>3066648
>Only nikon have a longer lasting mount

Pentax K is over 40 years old. It's also not really "a huge mess".

If you want to keep it simple, you can just assume that you can use any lens older than the body you currently have with guaranteed zero compatibility issues.

And for the film bodies, you can use any old or modern lens on any film (or digital)body, as long as it has an aperture ring.


The only thing you might have to watch out for if you buy a "current" camera is that pre- K-3/K-50 bodies (eg shit older than 2013) can not use the newest lenses with the electronic aperture control.


/autism

>>3066811
Simple pentax compatibility guide: Old lenses work on new bodies, new lenses don't work on old bodies.

File: hitachi fp-10 totaal02.jpg (103KB, 950x595px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 950x595px

Get an FP-10, or just use your phone.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSC-W1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2006:11:27 12:35:59
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Detected
Focal Length	18.70 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	950
Image Height	595
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

can someone tell me honestly if it's worth buying a sony A7 over a canon 6D ? i'm about to purchase my first FF body but can't decide.. I'm not invested in either system i've been shooting crop sensors for years now ( all fuji)

I'm tired of waiting around for fuji to finally decide to make a FF body. and i'm not about to buy there medium format body.

>>3066989
You don't need fullframe, you need self confidence.
Don't fix the wrong thing.

>>3066992

I do need FF.. crop sensors suck in low light and the iso performance is a nightmare on just about every crop sensor body i've used.

>>3067002
The difference really isn't as big as you think. What do you shoot that requires you to spend over 1k for better low light instead of just shooting in better light?

>>3067002

That is less an issue of crop sensors and more of the terrible special snowflake Fuji sensors.

>>3067004
astrophotography, city nightscapes

>>3067002
unless you're buying an A7s for low light then you do not need full frame, you need skill.
Fujis perform very well up to iso 52k

>>3067006
I have a XT-10, XT-1 and XPRO-2 i will say all of them have better image quality then my old canon 60D even with the smaller sensor in the XT-1.. but they are just terrible as soon as you push the iso past 800

>>3067007
>astrophotography,
Sorry, but no full frame will get you better performance than longer glass and an equatorial mount will give you.
>city nightscapes
I can't really imagine a cityscape where going longer in the shutter speed will hurt much of anything, not to mention techniques like stacking and averaging exposures.

>>3067011
how do you need skill to set a camera to infinity, iso auto 1600, F2.8 15 seconds take you're shot have it come out noisy as fuck?

>>3067013
don't get me wrong I love my Fuji's sometimes the system feels very limited. but the reason i've always stuck to fuji is i like the compact size, and overall design.. it's a lot easier for me to carry around a x-pro 2 with a 16mm on it then to lug around a 6D

>>3067013
>startrackers
are for shooting just stars, they blur anything static, full frame has a stop better snr and is less demanding on lenses.

Full frame always has better noise and sharper images. Crop will be dead in 5 years and all those crop lenses will be worthless.

>>3067017
Sonys are smaller with better ergo.

>>3066642
they'll update it after after all the whining.

>>3067293

They already patched the firmware so buffer empties in 30 seconds instead of 120.

Still shit, but better shit.

>>3067295
>clearing 250+ raw images in 30 seconds is shit

Lol

>>3066638
Don't get a fucking a9 sony betrayed us video fags. The a9 is fucking sports video pic camera.

>>3067300
>>3067295
250 compressed raws. uncompressed raws is a different story.

>>3067258
>crop will be dead in 5 years

Don't get me wrong I know very well the limitations of crop sensors. however to the average consumer they are not going to shell out 1,500-2000 on a entry level FF body and another grand on top of that for a single FF lens.. I honestly think crop has a really good future ahead of it in the consumer market if nowhere else..

Not to mention crop sensors are getting better and better every year.. Just look at the XT-1 for exampe it's 16mp sensor is on par with the the XT-2's 24mp sensor.. don't get me wrong the XT-2 blows the XT-1 out of the water all day on performance levels..

Crop is no replacement for FF but they have there own place in the market.

>>3067258
>Crop will be dead in 5 years and all those crop lenses will be worthless.
Nah, crop cucks are what keep the market afloat. FF is for the prosumer to pro end and that's not where companies make their real money

>>3067426
People have been calling for the death of crop forever.

Really, the format that has potential to be killed off is full frame. As crops approach and surpass performance of full frame in low light, we've also started seeing digital medium format reach cheaper price levels than flagship full frame bodies. If a crop can do essentially everything a full frame can but for cheaper and a medium format can do more for cheaper, the only reason people will keep buying FF is just the legacy of the 135 format.

The death won't happen for a very long time, but it's on the horizon.

>>3067432
doubtful. if anything we will see the big names pushing more towards powerful crop sensors in mirrorless body's thats what's selling right now.. you think canon and nikon don't realize this?

File: hummingbird-1.jpg (176KB, 466x540px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 466x540px

>>3067258
>>3067432
There are still decent crop frames out there which allow for some really amazing pictures when it comes to small wildlife.

Crop sensors give the advantage of longer lenses via the multiplication when paired with lenses like 400,500,600,800mm. Crop sensors are not as amazing as their top tier FF ones, but they are still very viable and can produce fantastic results in the right hands. Teleconverters otherwise drastically reduce sharpness and IQ.

Crop sensor also fairs much better when it comes to macro because the multiplier brings you closer to the subject instead of stacking a teleconverter on which further ruins the quality.

There are clear advantages to crop frames, but it should be noted that it is not so much an advantage for the average consumer or a prosumer user.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon 30D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:08:10 13:16:31
ISO Speed Rating	500
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	466
Image Height	540

>>3067441
I love how you confidently post that thinking it in any way suggests that full frame isn't on the eventual chopping block.

As the comparative utility of full frame goes down, and as more and more people find aps-c more than suited for what they want, the attitude of "I gotta have full frame" will slowly wither and die. To be clear, I'm not saying you or I will live to see this day, it's a long time out; however, the jump between crop and full frame is damn near not being worth it now. There are only two real advantages that something like a D5/1D has over something like a Pentax 645z: speed (in general: from all the ways handling larger files slows stuff down to things like autofocus speed) and lens selection. You can't even really claim size as an advantage because it's not actually all that much bigger: http://cameradecision.com/compare/Pentax-645Z-vs-Nikon-D5

To top it off, going to mf would give manufacturers an excuse to put out a new professional lens mount that's not necessarily compatible with lower lines. People will bitch, and then they'll say something like "well, all of your EF lenses are perfectly compatible with the new 1.6x crop 1D".

>>3067002
If you want FF just for using nice FF lenses without any crop get a 5DMII, its performance is a bit worse than the 6D and obviously it doesn't compete with the A7, but in terms of mounting some nice Contax/Yashica Zeiss lenses from the 80s or interesting cheap telephotos you won't be able to get a much better feature/cost ratio.

It does pretty satisfactory 1080p and has magic lantern so you can do raw. 10 bit support will be coming soon and as a result you'll be able to take uncompressed video at non-retarded filesizes and card speeds. Viewfinders's 0.7x and you can change out the screen for an ultra fine one which is actually good enough for manual focus. All in all it's the perfect companion for a small fixed lens compact, especially if you dabble in video. I copped mine for £500 and am perfectly happy using a CY Zeiss 50/1.7 with it.

>>3067426
>>3067429
>>3067441

Read a cipa report, crop is already dead, full frame keeps it all afloat, especially ff mirrorless.

>>3067432
Crop will always be over a stop worse in low light as it has less than half the surface area of ff. And crop will never give as much apparent sharpness as smaller sensors are more demanding. Comparing to digi mf is dumb, real mf is still 10 times as much as ff, and it is a completely different shooting process, using a phase one is sloooowwwww.
And crops death is now happening.

>>3067450
No, crop is just the centre of a ff sensor, if I shoot with my a7rii, then crop out the centre (or even put it in crop mode), it will be identical to shooting with an a6500 (well, slightly better, cos bsi). Crop & ff sensors are cut from the same wafers.

Alarming amounts of wilful ignorance on the board today...

>>3068614
So if I shoot a 20MP Full Frame and a 20MP Crop Frame on a 500mm (800mm crop) and the subject (such as a small bird) fills the frame on the CROP and the subject barely fills a third of the Full Frame that I have to crop it down, the FF is going to be better after a crop vs. the Crop Frame without any crop at all? Explain?

>>3068627
Considering you're gonna resample the end image to ~2mp anyways, it doesn't make the slightest difference.

A 24mp ff sensor is about 10mp when cropped, 10mp is plenty for a 10" x 12" print.

Resolution is determined by lens sharpness anyways, and all the best lenses are ff, so you're not even gonna make any weight savings. There's not a single crop specific super-tele.

>>3068627
DONT a worry about it friend. I know exactly what you're trying to figure out with that specific example. Sounds to me like you know exactly why you're using a crop frame alongside a full (if my assumption is correct). The Sony guy is most likely jumping to the fact that crop sensors have a lesser pixel density thus have lesser low light performance and will produce more noise and a lesser resulting image. Technically he is correct. The only time it may be not 'correct' is if you manage to use that setup in conditions favorable to when a crop frame can operate almost indifferently to a full frame (i.e. Good lighting, low ISO scenario, flash, etc.).

I also shoot birds and I go as far as to shoot FF and Crop on large primes. No my crop cannot match my FF performance under all conditions, but I'm already aware when I can afford to let the crop stand in where the magnification can be quite desireable and viable. I have produced a number of images for small birds on detail levels that easily rival my full frame. It's definitely doable and only if you're fully aware of the crop limitations and equipped with the right accessories and knowhow. Don't fee discouraged and Good luck :)

File: 1273099027418.jpg (50KB, 800x507px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 800x507px

>>3068645
>resample to ~2mp, for his 1600x1200 VGA CRT monitor.

>Crop all his photos down to 10MP to cut out the waste caused by his shit composition.

>"all the best lenses are ff"
>user mentioned 500mm

the willful ignorance of sony cucks is off the charts if you ask me. they get a few good sensors and everyone else is a total pleb after that.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>3068663
"Full hd/1080p" is 2mp, do you often view images online larger than that?

Crop due to hitting the limits of your reach and still not filling the frame, if you do fill the frame, you should definitely be on full frame, the extra detail is great for wildlife.

What about the user mentioning 500mm, all the 500mm lenses I see are ff.

S a l t y c r o p b o y e s

>>3068668
Not that guy but just pointing out that crops can use lenses other than crop lenses. In case you forgot.

>>3068675
And ff can use crop lenses too?

My original point was you make no weight saving or increased image quality by going for crop bodies and crop lenses if you're trying to make the 'muh extra reach' argument work.

>>3066843
Damn w2c

>>3067258
>Crop will be dead in 5 years
Just like Micro Four Thirds was going to be, right?

>>3068771
4/3 is officially dead friend.

>>3068679
No weight argument was made ever. That was all you by yourself. It was a pretty clear question about resolution comparisons relative to FF or CROP.

If lighting and lens type are the same and accuracy of the shot is virtually identical, is a picture of a subject at say 4700 x 3150 (15mp, minimal crop on a crop frame) gonna be better than a picture of the same thing at 2700 x 1800 (5mp, significant crop on full frame) granted both are equally sharp prior to crop?

I would think so, because more detail is visible at a higher resolution.

>>3067314
raw?
what do you need jpg for?

>>3068808
your argument is retarded, pixel density on crop and full frame are vastly similar unless you're on an older generation

>>3068776
4/3 isn't micro four thirds you newfag scum

File: 126669_0.jpg (63KB, 630x630px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 630x630px

>>3068866
Hi Jason Lanier :)

Take a decent telephoto lens over 300mm. Take a picture of the moon with your full frame, now with your crop frame. Crop and enlarge until they are both the same size. Which one can you see more details. sony mouthbreathers should actually do photography once in a while instead of salivating over their spec sheet.

k and we're done!

>>3068910
That new 20.1mp sensor found in the d5? It's cut from the same wafer as the sony a7rii, except the version sony sells to others doesn't have bsi.

So in this example, the sony shot would have the same amount of detail, but less noise.

It's not salivating over spec sheets, it's just not being a fucking tard.

File: comparison 1dsiii 40D.png (2MB, 2000x814px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x814px

>>3068910
>>3069309
The prodigal cameraman has come along to drop a wrench into your little camera spec war.

Glad I saved these files to make a comparison. Let this one blow your mind on the dismissing of crop sensors.

I have also generously resized it to above 2MP to follow your standard.

These images are both unaltered and in their original states minus just the cropping work. Upon closer inspection, the 40D picture had more detail to offer.

>>3069348
>hurr crop is better
>shows image of 2 identical moons quite clearly limited by lens resolution and atmospheric haze.

Fucking tards.

>>3069357
>offers no test results at all outside of what he reads on spec sheets.
>crop frame used was half the resolution and severely inferior in technology to the full frame comparison.
>complains about lens resolution and atmospheric haze when presented with real and controlled test results.

what a shitty thread kys

>>3069384
The crop frame may be half the resolution, but it has a higher pixel density.

And yes, if the test is limited by an exterior influence, it's not a test. It's like testing the latest graphics cards and putting them in an 8 year old celeron rig with 1gb of ram. And then blaming the gpus when every card gets the same fps.

>>3069357
>>3069393

Moon guy here, the pictures were both taken on two different cameras just before 3 AM on September 13th 2011 in Warsaw, Missouri. It was a full moon.

You can check the weather log of that day and it was a clear 10mi visibility clear sky no wind day at 65 deg F (18.3 deg C). Warsaw is a bit out in the boonies and by a huge lake, making it ideal for astrophotography and other night sky shootings. It is highly unlikely that light pollution or any haze would have contributed to diminishing the photo quality on either shot. I went out to the countryside so that I could shoot it without issues.

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/@7165068/historic?month=9&year=2011 Link to the weather information just in case you were unable to find it.

Both were shot on a Canon 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS at 400mm. The lens was purchased new at the time so it had no haze or fungus. Shot on a tripod, and with a UV Haze filter from B+W.