Mirrorless Cameras And Fine Art Photography

This image is taken with a Sony 6000 and a Sigma 60 mm lens. Very compact. 24 mpx APS-C sensor.

I have a fullformat mirrorless camera as well, Sony A7, but no good lens yet.

The pictures I'm getting with my Sony a6000 are as good as what I can do with my Nikon D7000. If you want to print things very large, and your subjects are finely detailed things that go all the way to the corners, then the lens will be a limiting factor. But there are some quality lenses for the Sony E-mount system.

I'm using a Sony NEX6 with a Zeiss 16-70 F4 lens. I like the light weight of the Sony. I was carrying a Canon 7D with a 15-85eos lens. The Sony is much lighter and produces very nice images.

The jury is still out on my A7r. I bought it as a consideration to potentially replace my bulkier D800e. Although it's a FF sensor (and some say the same as is in the D800e) I'm not seeing the same quality, even when using Zeiss lenses. The image lacks something compared to the D800e, and the A7r is also a bit fiddlier to use than the Nikon, although of course there's a weight saving. I'm wondering if it's because the Sony compresses RAW files (the common sense behind this move baffles me).

So I won't be replacing my Nikons with the Sony for my more serious work just yet.

I take it you guys all prefer the FF sensor over the smaller ones like m43. Since I shoot a lot of bird images, I wonder what you do for long lenses with the newer cameras like the Sony mirror-less models? The advantage for me in the m43 is that a 300mm lens yields an image on the sensor like a 600mm lens but weights a fraction of the larger lens.

I don't use long lenses for any of my work. The maximum focal length I work at is 120mm.

I just joined so no pictures to show yet. I have used Lumix for several years now and currently shoot with a GH3. After shooting with very fast but very heavy equipment for many years my body just can't handle it any more so when the 4/3 came out I was intrigued and since my former system was Contax I liked the idea of the company being linked to Leica and of being able to use German optics if I want to. I love the freedom the small camera gives me and my GH3 comes with every option, whistle and bell anyone could ever want. With the GH3 I find the quality is excellent even in the higher ISO range which is important to me as I often shoot indoor arenas at horse shows. I currently have the Panasonic 14-45 and the 45-200. Looking to pick up the 35-100 2.8, hopefully this year. I have entered my photos on other sites with excellent results against the "big 2" and my photos taken with the GH3 were featured in a 5 page layout in a national (horse) breed magazine a few months ago so I would say yes, they can hold their own.

I love the sony a6000 camera, It came with the 16.50 mm but I bought the 55/210 recently, So far very happy with it, Very lightweight and fairly compact,

Paul, I'm not really interested in FF at all. FF cameras are bigger, FF lenses are much bigger and heavier. FF has some advantages, mainly lower noise, but my own opinion is that there's a bit of hype and marketing behind the current FF push. For my a6000 (an APS-C sensor), the best lens I can get for now is 210mm, which lets me get a good usable bird image at about 12 feet or a bit beyond. If you want some scenery around the bird, you can of course go much further.

Here are some of mine from my panny gh2. I have lenses from 8mm to 300mm

And a few others

Ya know, every time I see a thread on this I start thinking about them.

With the full frame sensor I would consider the Sony and especially like the ISO capability of the A7s. My issue is it a a grand more than the Canon 6D. Weight is simply not an issue for me yet so I guess I will save the grand, but man have the mirrorless systems come a LONG way.

Paul,
You do not specify if you have had any image problems with FAA. Have you had any that would not load? Would not print by FAA? I've been waiting for a shutterless/mirrorless camera that I can use or adapt my current lenses to but so far the specs are not as good as the EOS Canon lines and the weights and dimensions are not all that different. Yours is about a pound and so are the EOS while the costs are relatively the same. Because I take bird shots I can't use full frame as I need the extra magnification. I'm counting on guys like you for opinions as I take a lot of bird shots and it seems that technology has not provided anything different as of yet that would meet my requirements. It would seem to me that the immediate trade-off would be having to work without long lenses. As you know, great bird shots require a completely different set up than "regular" photography so I will be watching this thread for other's solutions that bird with small cameras and rumors of future technology that would work. I doubt there are too many as of yet. Hopefully before my current set up craps out.

I use the Mirrorless Sony A77 (3/4 Frame) and love it. The color is fantastic and the good thing about Sony is the image Stabalization built in. I have 3 different lenses, an 18mm-70mm kit lens, a 55mm-200mm Sony, and a Carl Zeiss 16mm-80mm. Here are a few samples:

I love my Sony a7r, I use my canon lenses on it so not sure what the weight savings would be if I could afford the zeiss lenses, but I would hate to use it for birds in flight, it seams like the display is just way to slow for that. I do like your bird image that you show in your original post though.

Terry
tlmair.com

I see that most seem to be using the Sony mirror-less cameras. The few times I have handled one I was impressed. The only down side for me was the limited lens selection, especially at the long end. I actually own two m43 cameras, the Olympus EM1 along with the 50-200mm Oly SWD lens, a lens made for the earlier 43 cameras. I use this rig exclusively for my wild life shots and especially birds. The other camera is a Panasonic GH3 with the latest 14-140 lens that I use for almost all else. I also have a Olympus 60mm macro lensand the Olympus 9-18mm WA zoom. From an ergonomic point of view, I like the GH3 better but because I am looking for the best long glass I can afford, I am sticking with the Olympus and the Oly 50-200SWD lens. Earlier I was using the Panasonic 100-300 and it is good, but its just not as sharp as the Olympus zoom. Someone asked if I am having difficult getting my images on FAA. I had a problem when I started two weeks ago getting the first ones up because I did not really understand how to do it. Since then, No problems at all. Most were shots taken with either the Olympus of Panasonic cameras (M43) and cropped and post processed as I thought it was needed. AS I recall there are two images on my site that were shot using the Canon 5Dmk. I have not seen any prints yet through FAA so I cannot say how my m43 size images will print. I was hoping some one using m43 or 43 size cameras could comment on this.

I seem to be having problems doing a simple copy and paste with the individual photos so I hope this comes through. These were all taken with the GH3. http://fineartamerica.com/featured/tundra-swans-theresa-peterson.html

Very nice images, I especially like the Panther Creek photo. This, I assume is with your GH3. How did you process them for display?

Thank you Paul. Yes, all of these are with the GH3. I use Lightroom 5.7

Interesting discussion---

I've been using a Fuji XE-1 with an 18-55mm lens. I find that if I use a tripod I get great results, but the speed for focusing and ability to gather light are lacking compared to a full frame camera. I love the lighter weight, and I tend to grab and go with this camera a lot more than I did with my Nikon. Also don't feel so conspicuous. That said, I switched from a D610 and I miss the full frame. I'm waiting for Fuji to come out with a full frame, or Nikon to come out with a ILMC with a full frame. Who knows if either will happen. I'd like to get the Sony A7, but hesitate due to what I've heard about lack of lenses. I don't know. Probably fuss about it too much. If you check out my latest uploads, they're all Fuji. Here's one:

These were both taken with a GH2, and printed via FAA, or found here (see below)

The following was sold on FAA as a 20x30 Canvas


And this, though found on FAA, was printed as a 48" wide acrylic (It was wanted in Australia, so they contacted an Aust. printer who contacted me

YEAH it worked. Trouble with the copy/paste for some reason. Anyway, these are all from the Lumix GH3.

I've been able to get some nice, usable stuff from an older P&S Coolpix at 10MP. But it's not quite good enough for planned shooting trips. My normal rig is a Nikon DX at 23MP that I use with two kit lenses plus a super 10-20 Sigma wide angle. Both have their place.

With that said, I just scored an Oly 12.3 MP MFT with two lenses and an Oly underwater housing om ebay I'm excited about the UW housing because I do a lot of stuff on the beach. This should allow me to get into the surf.

I don't expect to have it until next week but I'll be sure to post some of my "findings." If it works out well I'll likely upgrade to a new body with a better sensor. There is always something new to learn in this biz. :)


---------------
~ Bill
~ US Pictures .com

Sony a7r fullframe all the way. They now have an a7II with built in object stabilizer, and a 24-240 lens is due out in March. -W

If you need a source for all sorts of micro 4/3 info I've found that http://www.43rumors.com/ is very good.

I shot a Fuji XE-1 for about a year and although it is capable of decent IQ I upgraded to a FF DSLR because it was just too slow at times - not just in terms of AF speed, but also in terms of start-up time. The DSLR is always ready to take the shot whereas the Fuji took a little time to 'boot up'. This can be annoying for spur-of-the-second street photography for example.

I also looked at the Sony A7 at the time but didn't like the shooting experience; it felt more like using a computer than shooting a camera. I would love to go mirrorless again due to size/weight, but feel that the technology isn't quite there yet. I'm keeping my eye on Sony to see what happens with the next generation of bodies and also lenses. Having said that, I am quite happy with my Nikon DF which is relatively light (about 750gr) and not that much bigger than my Fuji.

I enjoy night photography and spent the past week taking night shots of ocean drive

What are the typical size people order for pictures of birds? This seems to be an issue that effects the size of the camera sensor and the amount of cropping, as well as the kind of post processing people might do on work submitted to FAA.

I don't use one even though when I worked offshore I was restricted to 20 lbs total bag weight due when I was flying out by helicopter. A decision that has made my 10s of thousands of dollars. Even still my first digital camera was a D70s and I did not consider those images fine art quality at the time. I asked my digital camera mentor how to get rid of the noise and she said "get a better camera." And when the D300 came out I was finally back into shooting for fine art. Later I learned to process the images from the D70s so I can sell them and they sell well here.

The analogy is that although your camera is capable of producing great photos, you are going to have to work a little harder at shooting and processing if you want to make large prints that will sell and pass minimal requirements here to be printed.

I suggest you put up a few images for critique here or in a group or on another site.

Paul, offer as large a size as you can. But inspect your images at 100%. If they are noisy or a bit blurry they are useless at that size. Expecting to always be able to make a print from a cropped image or make a 48 inch print from every images is a bit unrealistic.
Keep on mind the competition is fierce

Bradford
I do inspect my images at 100% and at times I look at them for detail at 200%. At the larger view you can see pixelation and chrom blurring if it is there. If interested, please take a look at my images at my site here at FAA. I am into bird photography and am concerned about size of prints people order. I am getting the impression that in the category Birds, the print sizes are towards too lower end. As I said, I have had prints made locally for my personal use, that are perfectly good (excellent) images from cropped files (M43) at 20x30.