X-T1 vs. D3_ vs. D8xx?

[sashbar]

What exactly is wrong with Sony lenses?

 

[gsgary]

What exactly is wrong with Sony lenses?

Nothing especially with the new ones coming out, but I will still use my M adapter and lenses, Nikon shooter don't like manual focus

 

[goodguy]

What exactly is wrong with Sony lenses?

Nothing, these are good lenses, simply too few, Sony is really cheap in coming with lots of them especially fast zoom lenses.

What exactly is wrong with Sony lenses?

Nikon shooter don't like manual focus

Not sure saying Nikon users dont like MF, do you know all Nikon users in the world ?
Did you talk to each and every one of them in regards to their taste for AF or MF ?
In my case I dont like MF, mostly because my eye sight is too poor, I find it hard to use MF, just cant use it so AF for me is a life saver.

 

[agp]

What exactly is wrong with Sony lenses?

I personally don't know what lens goes with what... lol

 

[jake337]

Have you checked out the Df? Maybe 16mp isn't enough but the low light capabilities are pretty damn good.

You can add a wifi SD card to any camera.

Yes, the df controls are the most counterintuitive things ever. Not a fan. But I do like its looks though.

I've been using it for about a year now. Handles like any other DSLR. I can easily change ISO with two fingers and keep my eye in the viewfinder. You can churned the shutter speed to 1/3 step and use the back wheel for SS. The Aperture dial is small but isn't any harder to change on the fly.

 

[Will Chao]

I have looked at the a7 series, but the lack of lens options is a turn off. I know it can take on all sorts if lenses with adapters and things, but it's just not the same..

Agreed. I love the A7 but I wouldn't get one till Sony bothers to get more serious with their lens offering to this camera.
To me it makes no sense to buy a Sony camera then attach to it lenses from another maker through an adapter that in most cases will not AF and even if it AF in Canon lenses case it AF really slow.

Well it makes perfect sense considering if you want 17mm tilt-shift or 11mm ultra wide (which are both great for landscapes and architecture, as is the OP's requirements), you can only get it with Canon system

However Canon bodies are crap for these types of photography, Sony sensors are much better

and you can't adapt Canon lenses to Nikon SLR bodies so, A7 series is literally the best you can have

Sure AF won't be as good as the proprietary, but considering the genre and the awesome focus peaking, I don't see how that's much of an issue

In terms of proprietary lenses, it's actually got quite a good selection, there's the Zeiss 55mm F1.8, 16-35 F4, 24-70 F4, 70-200 F4. Sure they're F4, but considering it's full frame it's equivalent to a F2.8 on a crop sensor like the X-T1 anyway

 

[goodguy]

In terms of proprietary lenses, it's actually got quite a good selection, there's the Zeiss 55mm F1.8, 16-35 F4, 24-70 F4, 70-200 F4. Sure they're F4, but considering it's full frame it's equivalent to a F2.8 on a crop sensor like the X-T1 anyway

If I am not mistaking getting and F4 lens on FF is like getting F2.8 on APS-C so why would I want to get FF ?
I want F2.8 on FF so I can choose what aperture to use and get that extra light in if needed.

 

[agp]

I have looked at the a7 series, but the lack of lens options is a turn off. I know it can take on all sorts if lenses with adapters and things, but it's just not the same..

Agreed. I love the A7 but I wouldn't get one till Sony bothers to get more serious with their lens offering to this camera.
To me it makes no sense to buy a Sony camera then attach to it lenses from another maker through an adapter that in most cases will not AF and even if it AF in Canon lenses case it AF really slow.

Well it makes perfect sense considering if you want 17mm tilt-shift or 11mm ultra wide (which are both great for landscapes and architecture, as is the OP's requirements), you can only get it with Canon system

However Canon bodies are crap for these types of photography, Sony sensors are much better

and you can't adapt Canon lenses to Nikon SLR bodies so, A7 series is literally the best you can have

Sure AF won't be as good as the proprietary, but considering the genre and the awesome focus peaking, I don't see how that's much of an issue

In terms of proprietary lenses, it's actually got quite a good selection, there's the Zeiss 55mm F1.8, 16-35 F4, 24-70 F4, 70-200 F4. Sure they're F4, but considering it's full frame it's equivalent to a F2.8 on a crop sensor like the X-T1 anyway

But seriously though, where can I find out a list of compatible lenses with the A7 series? I'm not so keen on spending top dollar on a Zeiss, when comparable Nikon lenses are just as good to my eye.

 

[fjrabon]

I have looked at the a7 series, but the lack of lens options is a turn off. I know it can take on all sorts if lenses with adapters and things, but it's just not the same..

Agreed. I love the A7 but I wouldn't get one till Sony bothers to get more serious with their lens offering to this camera.
To me it makes no sense to buy a Sony camera then attach to it lenses from another maker through an adapter that in most cases will not AF and even if it AF in Canon lenses case it AF really slow.

Well it makes perfect sense considering if you want 17mm tilt-shift or 11mm ultra wide (which are both great for landscapes and architecture, as is the OP's requirements), you can only get it with Canon system

However Canon bodies are crap for these types of photography, Sony sensors are much better

and you can't adapt Canon lenses to Nikon SLR bodies so, A7 series is literally the best you can have

Sure AF won't be as good as the proprietary, but considering the genre and the awesome focus peaking, I don't see how that's much of an issue

In terms of proprietary lenses, it's actually got quite a good selection, there's the Zeiss 55mm F1.8, 16-35 F4, 24-70 F4, 70-200 F4. Sure they're F4, but considering it's full frame it's equivalent to a F2.8 on a crop sensor like the X-T1 anyway

F/4 is f/4 regardless of what sensor you're using. Full frame sensors don't magically make things twice as bright.

 

[Will Chao]

I have looked at the a7 series, but the lack of lens options is a turn off. I know it can take on all sorts if lenses with adapters and things, but it's just not the same..

Agreed. I love the A7 but I wouldn't get one till Sony bothers to get more serious with their lens offering to this camera.
To me it makes no sense to buy a Sony camera then attach to it lenses from another maker through an adapter that in most cases will not AF and even if it AF in Canon lenses case it AF really slow.

Well it makes perfect sense considering if you want 17mm tilt-shift or 11mm ultra wide (which are both great for landscapes and architecture, as is the OP's requirements), you can only get it with Canon system

However Canon bodies are crap for these types of photography, Sony sensors are much better

and you can't adapt Canon lenses to Nikon SLR bodies so, A7 series is literally the best you can have

Sure AF won't be as good as the proprietary, but considering the genre and the awesome focus peaking, I don't see how that's much of an issue

In terms of proprietary lenses, it's actually got quite a good selection, there's the Zeiss 55mm F1.8, 16-35 F4, 24-70 F4, 70-200 F4. Sure they're F4, but considering it's full frame it's equivalent to a F2.8 on a crop sensor like the X-T1 anyway

F/4 is f/4 regardless of what sensor you're using. Full frame sensors don't magically make things twice as bright.

Full frame is 2x bigger than APS-C therefore twice the light captured per frame

more light captured = less interpolation for equivalent ISO = generally 1 stop better ISO performance, this cancels out with the aperture

You can test this by using a full frame camera, set it on a tripod, shoot a picture at say 70 mm F2.8, ISO 1600, then shoot another picture at 105mm F4.0, ISO 3200, then crop the first picture to APS-C frame (to mimic APS-C) camera

What you get here is two shots, same framing, same FOV, same pixel density, different aperture, different ISO, but the noise levels (and depth of field) will be almost exactly the same

 

[Will Chao]

In terms of proprietary lenses, it's actually got quite a good selection, there's the Zeiss 55mm F1.8, 16-35 F4, 24-70 F4, 70-200 F4. Sure they're F4, but considering it's full frame it's equivalent to a F2.8 on a crop sensor like the X-T1 anyway

If I am not mistaking getting and F4 lens on FF is like getting F2.8 on APS-C so why would I want to get FF ?
I want F2.8 on FF so I can choose what aperture to use and get that extra light in if needed.

well because:

1. similar price

2. better image quality

3. adapt other full frame lenses

 

[fjrabon]

I have looked at the a7 series, but the lack of lens options is a turn off. I know it can take on all sorts if lenses with adapters and things, but it's just not the same..

Agreed. I love the A7 but I wouldn't get one till Sony bothers to get more serious with their lens offering to this camera.
To me it makes no sense to buy a Sony camera then attach to it lenses from another maker through an adapter that in most cases will not AF and even if it AF in Canon lenses case it AF really slow.

Well it makes perfect sense considering if you want 17mm tilt-shift or 11mm ultra wide (which are both great for landscapes and architecture, as is the OP's requirements), you can only get it with Canon system

However Canon bodies are crap for these types of photography, Sony sensors are much better

and you can't adapt Canon lenses to Nikon SLR bodies so, A7 series is literally the best you can have

Sure AF won't be as good as the proprietary, but considering the genre and the awesome focus peaking, I don't see how that's much of an issue

In terms of proprietary lenses, it's actually got quite a good selection, there's the Zeiss 55mm F1.8, 16-35 F4, 24-70 F4, 70-200 F4. Sure they're F4, but considering it's full frame it's equivalent to a F2.8 on a crop sensor like the X-T1 anyway

F/4 is f/4 regardless of what sensor you're using. Full frame sensors don't magically make things twice as bright.

Full frame is 2x bigger than APS-C therefore twice the light captured per frame

more light captured = less interpolation for equivalent ISO = generally 1 stop better ISO performance, this cancels out with the aperture

You can test this by using a full frame camera, set it on a tripod, shoot a picture at say 70 mm F2.8, ISO 1600, then shoot another picture at 105mm F4.0, ISO 3200, then crop the first picture to APS-C frame (to mimic APS-C) camera

What you get here is two shots, same framing, same FOV, same pixel density, different aperture, different ISO, but the noise levels (and depth of field) will be almost exactly the same

That depends pretty wildly on what camera you are using. Sure FF has an advantage ISO wise, due to having larger pixels, but sensor technology has drastically overtaken sensor size as the more important determinant of high ISO capability.

according to most objective measures, the newest Nikon APS-C cameras outperform Canon full frame cameras from a year or two ago at high ISO, pretty substantially.

 

[Derrel]

F/4 is f/4 regardless of what sensor you're using. Full frame sensors don't magically make things twice as bright.

Yeah...there is this unusual new misinformation/oddball thinking/screwed up conceptualization sweeping the internet, where "tech" writers have begun saying that a full-frame sensor "lets in more light" than a smaller sensor...which is really a dumb way to look at this. Apertures are relative to the lens focal length used, and in terms of exposure f/5.6 at 1/250 second is the "same exposure setting" on a 4x5 sheet of film, or on any sized sensor...if the light level at the scene requires an exposure of f/2.8 at 1/60 second, every single camera must be set to the same settings, no matter the capture size, in order to arrive at the right exposure of f/2.8 and 1/60 second.

 

[fjrabon]

F/4 is f/4 regardless of what sensor you're using. Full frame sensors don't magically make things twice as bright.

Yeah...there is this unusual new misinformation/oddball thinking/screwed up conceptualization sweeping the internet, where "tech" writers have begun saying that a full-frame sensor "lets in more light" than a smaller sensor...which is really a dumb way to look at this. Apertures are relative to the lens focal length used, and in terms of exposure f/5.6 at 1/250 second is the "same exposure setting" on a 4x5 sheet of film, or on any sized sensor...if the light level at the scene requires an exposure of f/2.8 at 1/60 second, every single camera must be set to the same settings, no matter the capture size, in order to arrive at the right exposure of f/2.8 and 1/60 second.

yeah, it went so far the other day as some dude tried to claim that medium format lenses "let in more light and give a totally different look."

I get the sentiment that FF sensors generally handle high ISO better, but just say that, not that f/4 on a full frame = f/2.8 on APS-C, which is just inarguably wrong and confusing. And to the extent that it's true, it's by no means exact.

 

[goodguy]

In terms of proprietary lenses, it's actually got quite a good selection, there's the Zeiss 55mm F1.8, 16-35 F4, 24-70 F4, 70-200 F4. Sure they're F4, but considering it's full frame it's equivalent to a F2.8 on a crop sensor like the X-T1 anyway

If I am not mistaking getting and F4 lens on FF is like getting F2.8 on APS-C so why would I want to get FF ?
I want F2.8 on FF so I can choose what aperture to use and get that extra light in if needed.

well because:

1. similar price

2. better image quality

3. adapt other full frame lenses

And thats why I sold my DX and got FX