[Winder]

The A7s looks like it's great for video but it only shoots 12 megapixel stills, which seems like it is roughly half the average megapixel count these days.

Do you have any idea how many professional photographers used the Canon 1DIII, 5D, Nikon D3, D3s, & D700? I would be willing to bet those 12MP cameras combine for the most used professional bodies of the digital age. While there are advantages to more megapixels, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the IQ of any of those cameras. If you can't get professional quality images from an A7s, then you don't need a camera. I have never used the HD video on my K-3. I can nothing about it. IF the Sony A7s was more geared towards still with IBIS I would buy it for my work.

[LeeRunge]

12mp is plenty for just about everything other than cropping and huge prints. A7s also is excellent in low light. If sony rounds out the lens lineup and keeps putting out A7's that cover everything they will have a strong FF brand. They are also very competitively priced.

[neostyles]

Its more than enough to print at 8x11 i know, but when you have more megapixels you can print larger.. I went to an arts and wine festival a few weeks back and some people were selling giant (several feet by several feet) prints.. Kind hard to do that and keep that 300 dpi as far as i know.. I used to be limited to 6 megapixels on the istds and the prints def left quite a bit desired compared to people who had a nikon/canon. That 24 megapixels is freedom.. If a client can print your image bigger it just makes it that much more appealing i would think too.. I guess it really depends on what you want to do... If you just shoot for weddings or something 12 mp would probably be fine, but me, personally, i like to keep my options open. I can crop down to a tiny portion of my image, maybe 1/10 and still end up with something that is good enough for social media. Sometimes it can be a very valuable tool. Maybe this is just me.. I recently graduated from college.. Kinda poor, wont be able to really afford new lenses, so the cropping ability kind of helps to even out the fact that i dont have any long glass at the moment.. I will often crop in to get closer to things, but like i said thats just me.

But anyway, yeah, sony does have a pretty competitive brand in the a A6 series.. The bodies are priced pretty competitively definitely. Being able to use lenses from both canon/nikon really helps because at the moment, they dont really have too many. There are some big ass lenses from both canon are nikon i wouldnt wonder whether the smaller sony bodies can handle them.. My 600 gram 24-85 might feel a little akward on a body that only weighs half of that or something..

[Rondec]

Still most of these things dont have very good stills. The A7s looks like it's great for video but it only shoots 12 megapixel stills, which seems like it is roughly half the average megapixel count these days. For the person who only wants video i guess its fine, but its really great to have great video and stils right at your finger tips The d750 is (from what i can tell, and in the tradition of nikon) fantastic at what it does. 1080p is arguably still the standard. Most 4k tvs cost so much the average person cant afford them (plus, with the very limited amount of movies out in 4k is there really a point?) and the bandwidth needed to actually stream 4k content over the internet isnt actually widely available. Btw, the a7s does require an external recorder. With the d750 you get full frame video and fantastic stills. I mean, i havent really used any other video package that wasn't full frame so i dont really have much of a reference point but im almost certain that full frame benefits video as much as stills The A7 series is very appealing in this regard, especially given its small size.


The fz1000 is intriguing def. Didnt know about that. Was about to make a witty comment about the bitrate on smartphone 4k but the note 3 shoots at 50 mpbs. not bad xD

Don't focus so much on specs of various cameras. Your camera is fine. Use it to its max and then figure out what you need -- glass or new camera body to get beyond that point.

[Winder]

Its more than enough to print at 8x11 i know, but when you have more megapixels you can print larger..

You're new to this whole camera/photography thing aren't you?
Sony A7S Review: Now Shooting! - Image Quality

"ISO 100/200/400 images look practically the same with excellent detail, colors and, as expected, extremely little to zero noise, and therefore all print up to a maximum size of 24 x 36 inches. At this resolution, we are pushing the limits of the 12MP full-frame sensor, and at close inspection, you can see some pixelation. However at normal viewing distances of an arm-length or further, images look nice and crisp."

It can handle 8x10 at ISO 12,800 -
"ISO 12,800 prints can go as large as 8 x 10 inches with no sweat. While the noise is a stronger now, it’s still confined primarily in the shadows and overall looks pretty fine-grained at this print size. Colors are still pleasant at this ISO as well."

For comparison the K-3 has 24MP and tops out at 3200 ISO for a color 8x10.
Pentax K-3 Review - Image Quality

Or compare the 21MP Canon 5DIII:
Canon 5D Mark III Review - Overview
It also tops out at 8x10 when shot at ISO 12,800.

If you think resolution is the only thing that determines how big you can print, then you obviously don't print much. Clean 12MPs will yield a much better print than a noisy 24MP. At low ISO you can print bigger with more MPs. With my K-3 I can hit 800 ISO and still print comfortably at A3+ in color. The 12MP A7 has a 2-stop advantage in that I could push to 3200 ISO and get the same print quality.

Unless you routinely print at 30" x 40" 12MP is more than fine, and actually with software like Perfect Resize 9 – onOne Software you can print much, much larger.

[waterfall]

It has been longer than 2 years. The two boxes I have seen for new 77mm LTDs this year still said Hoya on it. Ricoh bought Pentax 3 years ago, so I find it hard to believe they made a production run a year after buying the company and then packed them in to Hoya boxes.

I have posted in several threads that I think the last 3 big lens sales have been to clear inventory to make room for updated glass. I hope that is the case. I hope to see the 3 FA limited lenses released with a new body. I really, really hope that Ricoh doesn't just throw HD coatings on them, add the red ring and put them back on the market for a 20% premium. That would be very, very sad.

My new FA77 from B&H last month was a Ricoh box and paperwork. FA43 from earlier in 2014 was Ricoh.

[rawr]

I have sold 6m long wall murals printed from a K-5 image ...

From a K-3 or A7/D600/610/750 you could even easily do a 12m (500 inch) x 8m (330 inch) large highway billboard ...

DPI Calculator

[Winder]

My new FA77 from B&H last month was a Ricoh box and paperwork. FA43 from earlier in 2014 was Ricoh.

You would be the second person I have heard say they have received FA Limited lenses this year with Ricoh on the box. Two other received lenses in Hoya boxes (both 77mm lenses). What does it mean? Did Ricoh re-box the older Hoya lenses in new Ricoh boxes? Did Ricoh recently make a new production run? If the production run is recent then we are a couple of years away from seeing Ricoh improve the FA Limited lenses unless they made small production runs.

[skyer]

I have a Pentax K-3 + FA*24/2.0, 31/1.8 Lim, DA*55/1.4, FA*85/1.4, FA*80-200/2.8 and currently am thinking on switching to Nikon D750. However, I have concerns wether I can find similar lenses in a Nikon lineup.
Surely, Nikon has lenses with similar focal lengths and f-stops, but first of all I want to get similar bokeh with Nikon lenses but on a full frame.

It looks to me that I can rather easily substitute DA*55/1.4 and FA*85/1.4 with a Nikkor 85/1.4G. 58/1.4G is also great but having both 85/1.4G and 58/1.4G is too expensive.
Maybe a Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR II will also be a good substitute of FA*80-200/2.8.
But what about FA*24/2.0 and 31/1.8 Lim lenses? Will a 35/1.4 and a 50/1.4 Art lenses from Sigma will be good enough? Good sharpness is great but what about their bokeh in comparison to Pentax lenses and a possible AF inconsistancy?

[tuco]

It looks to me that I can rather easily substitute DA*55/1.4 and FA*85/1.4 with a Nikkor 85/1.4G. 58/1.4G is also great but having both 85/1.4G and 58/1.4G is too expensive.

Perhaps consider the 85/1.8G instead. Pretty much all Nikon f1.4G lenses are expensive whether they are good or not.

[neostyles]

You're new to this whole camera/photography thing aren't you?
Sony A7S Review: Now Shooting! - Image Quality

"ISO 100/200/400 images look practically the same with excellent detail, colors and, as expected, extremely little to zero noise, and therefore all print up to a maximum size of 24 x 36 inches. At this resolution, we are pushing the limits of the 12MP full-frame sensor, and at close inspection, you can see some pixelation. However at normal viewing distances of an arm-length or further, images look nice and crisp."

It can handle 8x10 at ISO 12,800 -
"ISO 12,800 prints can go as large as 8 x 10 inches with no sweat. While the noise is a stronger now, it’s still confined primarily in the shadows and overall looks pretty fine-grained at this print size. Colors are still pleasant at this ISO as well."

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/76-non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/270...#ixzz3L9OVaGjH

I was speaking purely from a megapixel standpoint. This isn't 1995 dude. iso 400 is supposed to be clean on most cameras.. It's even clean on my cellphone so i dont know what the reviewer was expecting.. I should hope low ISOs are cleaner than an ocd person's *insert something* especially at that price point. :P What i am saying is certainly true and clean files do help but i think there quit a bit less you can do with those files even if they do look good at 8x10 No matter how clean the files are, you simply cant get over a certain size without losing that high dpi. I mean, coming off what i said earlier, larger photo sites certainly help but i think iso 400 is a non issue too and i seriously doubt you will be able to see the differences, between the a7s and most of today's cameras at such low isos.. At those ISOs, i really doubt you would see the difference at even 12x36.. I dont think it will actually start to come into play until iso 1600 and then it may have an advantage, but you're still losing on that ability to crop and it's not as much of an advantage as you might think... Atleast at ye olde 8x10. With said 8x10, you are essentially shrinking the image by almost 3.5.. There is probably an advantage to be found, but i dont think it lies in printing i would humbly submit, probably more so viewing the files on a display. I think it would translate well to video

You Tube

You Tube

And i mean, i am certainly not new at this. I went through a bunch of different cameras so i have quite a bit of hands on experience with this. My first ist ds had only 6 mp that well.. you couldn't really do much with it. Then the K10 which had 10 megapixels. All our prints were 8x10 in the intro classes but i certainly agree with you that noise was a factor here as the k10 produced very coarse grain noise that was in fact visible on a lot of those 8x10s. This was less noticeable on the k20 and the d600 just blew everything out of the water.. I guess if you dont do a lot of cropping or want to print huge, then its ok. I suspect this is the case for many pros.

There are other benefits of more mp. What about shooting textures? Doing landscapes? Are you new at this photography thing?

EDIT: I went ahead took a pic with my d600 at iso 12,800 and scaled it down to 8x11 at 300 dpi. I would happily print this I mean, quality wise anyway.

[skyer]

Perhaps consider the 85/1.8G instead. Pretty much all Nikon f1.4G lenses are expensive whether they are good or not.

Thank you for your advice!
85/1.8G is considered to be a great lens. However, shallow DOF advantage over DA* 551.4 will almost disappear. If I am switching to FF, I want to notice a difference from a crop camera. Thus, 85/1.4G will fit my needs better.

[Winder]

Thank you for your advice!
85/1.8G is considered to be a great lens. However, shallow DOF advantage over DA* 551.4 will almost disappear. If I am switching to FF, I want to notice a difference from a crop camera. Thus, 85/1.4G will fit my needs better.

The 85 F/1.4G really needs to be stopped down to F/2 to be sharp. The Nikon 85mm F/1.8G is an excellent lens for the money. Unless you need the build quality and plan on significant use its hard to justify the 300% premium on price for 5% better IQ.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/95993939@N05/15304447343/ And you can always do a little work in post. The above is done with a camera and lens that together only cost $500.00. The 50mm and 85mm F/1.8G lenses are two of the best values (for the quality) on the market. I love fast glass, but F/2 is plenty fast for a FF and people photography. The Sigma 85mm is sharper in the center and at wider apertures than the Nikon F/1.4 if you need the speed.

[akanarya]

I have a Pentax K-3 + FA*24/2.0, 31/1.8 Lim, DA*55/1.4, FA*85/1.4, FA*80-200/2.8 and currently am thinking on switching to Nikon D750. ..

please re-consider not to sacrifice this wonderfull setup

[skyer]

The 85 F/1.4G really needs to be stopped down to F/2 to be sharp.
...
The Sigma 85mm is sharper in the center and at wider apertures than the Nikon F/1.4 if you need the speed.

It looks like you are wrong here.
According to the DxO, 1.4G is much sharper on wide apertures than the Sigma (Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8G versus competition - DxOMark). As for the 1.8G, it's good without a doubt. However, its DOF will be so much alike to my K-3+DA*55, then what's the purpose of moving to FF?

please re-consider not to sacrifice this wonderfull setup

I am trying hard to come up with some option that will let me have both systems I so much like the results all my lenses can deliver! It's very very hard to sacrifice them... At any case I am not going to sell my FA*85/1.4 and 31/1.8 Lim at the moment. Maybe I will test the systems side by side and then will decide what to leave and what to sell. In the meantime I have a feeling that optically FA*85/1.4 is better than 85/1.4G.

Has anyone compared side by side DA*55 and FA*85 or even 77/1.8 Lim vs 85/1.4G, FA*80-200 vs 70-200/2.8G VR II, 31/1.8 Lim vs Sigma 50/1.4 Art?