UKH

I’ve been thinking about making the swap to mirror less with my main camera system D810

I already have an olympus OMD em-5 but if I was to go mirrorless for full frame it would be a toss up between Nikon Z system and Sony.

whats people’s experience of Sony, and Nikon Z system, I have photographer friends who use Sony and may get a loaner to try but obviously it’s a big step (and it’s an expensive one) this is just part of a long term thought process and may lead nowhere 😏

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I've heard the ergonomics and weather sealing are significantly better on the Nikon Z compared to the Sony.

In reply to Alpenglow:

Yes I’ve heard similar, I have a lot of muscle memory invested in Nikon. I believe “most” weather sealing issues have been dealt with by Sony but they are still behind, it really depends on lens line up, Sony have a pretty stellar line up of lenses, they seem to be ahead on compact pro lenses I’ll have to see where Nikon is with its lens roadmap.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I haven't used either, but my understanding (I've been keeping an eye on it out of future interest) is that Nikon has the ergonomics nailed, but a very immature native lens lineup balanced with a good adapter and huge catalog of lenses that perform perfectly with that adapter.

Sony seem to be a ways ahead on the technology, and have a great but expensive lens lineup, but the ergonomics are meant to be worse (although it's said the A9 and A9II are better) 

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Sony has been the front runner in FF mirrorless, so it has the largest native mount lens selection available. 
 

Canon mirrorless, Nikon mirrorless and the L-mount consertium have less native lenses available. 
 

Unless you have a proper reason behind only thinking of Nikon or Sony, I’d seriously have a play with all the major brands and their bodies. I’d also look into the lenses, as native glass tends to be better than adapted ones.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

If I was to go full-frame mirror-less then it would be Sony, well before Nikon. That's going off every single YouTube review that I've seen over the last couple of years.

I'm still happy with my choice of micro four thirds, rather than full frame.

I know that it's not been well received but have you considered a Pansonic S1?

youtube.com/watch?v=rZ_C7f0BXbw&

In reply to The Lemming:

If I had to choose today it would have to be Sony, the Panasonic seems a little large

I'm looking for

*compact bodies

*good selection of lenses Including wide fast zoom and wide fast prime 20-24mm

*quality compact native mirrorless 70-200f4 zoom 

* good IBS

*good weatherproofing

*good handling

at the moment Sony have it on the lenses, the 16-35 2.8 GM and the 70-200 f4 would be enough for me, Nikon don’t have that at the moment

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Quite happy with my Micro four thirds and my neck thanks me for the choice.

My lenses go from 12 all the way up to 400. Similar lenses when factoring in the 2x magnification, in the full-frame world, would bankrupt me. You seen the price of full-frame 800mm lenses?

https://www.jessops.com/p/nikon/af-s-800mm-f-5-6e-fl-ed-vr-lens-97646

Gulp

In reply to The Lemming:

It’s on sale 😏

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Think I'll buy two.

Just thought I'd give one last attempt at fanboying MFT. My camera ticks almost if not all your boxes.

Weather-sealed, up to being hit in the face by a huge wave that nearly knock's you over.

My lenses 12-35, 35-100 and 100-400 are Leica. The first two lenses are f2.8. All pin-sharp for me.

Compact magnesium body

Awesome IBS. To be honest, I don't think I will need my gimbal any time soon. I can hand-hold 400mm

Handling is a personal thing, however the batteries last for ages, even the generic ones

Video 4k 50 frames per second, H.265 codec and 10bit. Will even do as little as 2fps or 180fps.

However the negative, is that its not full-frame.

In reply to The Lemming:

I have an olympus OMD em5 so I’m already sold on the MFT system, I can’t commit to it fully as my main system just because it can’t quite handle the blue hour

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I have a Nikon D850 and a Sony A7S2, I've had the Sony about 2 years. I'm not a fan of the mirrorless thing for stills photography but it wins hands down for video. 

The Nikon Z7 has a better viewfinder that the Sony so may be worth checking out. The tiny Sony VFs just aren't good enough for me for stills when using the VF rather than the rear screen, depends on what kind of photo you are taking I guess but I like to have a good viewfinder. 

I also find the smallness of them a pain, its nice to carry but not to operate. Too hard to hit the right switch without having to look for it. 

But I know many professional photographers use them just fine and have got rid of their DSLRs. Definitely worth an extended try before you buy if you can manage it. I'm not sure that mirrorless is the future, I think the speed and usability of SLRs will keep them in business forever with the sports/wildlife types.  

In reply to jethro kiernan:

The S1 then?

I just can't justify getting one as I am a hobbyist. If its good enough to be on Netflix's list of cameras, then it must be good?

In reply to jethro kiernan:

This review may help you decide?

It reviews Panasonic and Sony.

youtube.com/watch?v=CphwVNgX32s&

In reply to The Lemming:

S1 isn't certified by Netflix, that it the video-centric model S1H.

That being said, unless you primary shoot video. S1 or S1R would be obvious choices from Panasonic fleet, the high spec S1R is however getting  close to the price-range of Leicas (ok, closer).

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Jethro, I've got the Sony A7RII and two Sony A7s. Small, compact, light and high image quality. Only downside for me has been poorest battery life in cold weather but just bough shed loads of generic batteries and all sorted.

I wish they were more weather sealed but to be honest they've been used in all weathers and never had any problems (did tape up the hot shoe). 16-35mm GM is superb. Bought it recently and quality as  good as Zeiss Batis 25mm. Can't really comment too much on 70-200mm f4, have briefly borrowed one and liked it and will eventually be getting one.

Think the Sony system is pretty mature now especially compared to it's rivals but you do pay a premium for lenses like the 16-35mm GM but to me it's definitely been worth it. Lens is brilliant across all focal lengths, even at 35mm which is meant to be weakest (possibly I've just got a really good copy). It is heavy/bulky compared to a prime lens but obviously covers a lot of focal lengths.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Have you considered Fuji or are you set on FF?

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Obviously not tried the OM-D E-M1 MkII or the new MkIII…?...way better M4/3 cameras/sensors.

you say you want:-

""I'm looking for

*compact bodies

*good selection of lenses Including wide fast zoom and wide fast prime 20-24mm

*quality compact native mirrorless 70-200f4 zoom 

* good IBS

*good weatherproofing

*good handling""

The above Olys are operational rated to -10C....& are IPX1 water/dust proof....the other cameras you are looking at are NOT (as far as I can tell)

The Olys have the best IBS on the market..& circa 5.5 to 7.5 stops

Oly make a 12-100mm f4 IS Pro zoom....(35mm = 24-200mm f4 aperture with f8 depth of focus)

wide fast prime?...Oly & others make various ones for M4/3. (Oly makes a 12mm f2)..

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I’m not sure if I fully understand the rush to full frame mirrorless? Sure the bodies are more compact but the lenses aren’t. Current crop frame  dslrs are are as good as full frame dslrs of a few years ago. I use a Pentax KS2 with a selection of limited lenses. If I upgrade to a KP body I’ll find it hard to understand the benefit of a FF mirrorless system in terms of IQ and compactness over it (other than video in which I’m not interested)

In reply to Snowdave:

I’m an advocate for MFT but it really doesn’t have the dynamic range and low light ability of a ff frame sensor and that’s someone who has shot with a D810 and OMD em5, it doesn’t matter for a lot of situations but I shoot a lot in low light. The ergonomics of the Oly system is not as intuitive as the Nikon system and not just because of size

MFT lenses are among the best I’ve used and I think this seems to be the case for all native mirrorless lenses wether Sony,Fuji, Oly and recently Nikon

I love the Nikon D810 but it is a very unforgiving camera the slightest misfocus or camera shake and the pictures can be unusable. (The IBS in the oly is awesome)

I've also had ongoing issues with back focus on a couple of lenses which has been frustrating (doesn’t occur with mirrorless)

I have seriously considered just using the Oly MFT system and have been using it a bit more in challenging situations but there have been a couple of times it has struggled (and other times it has surpassed the Nikon 😏) 

it has been this playing around with two systems that has made me want the best of both worlds 😀

@Robert I did consider Fuji a few years ago, the IBS on the xt4 could be a game changer and I like the controls on the Fuji 

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Clearly the world is going mirrorless DSLR's will be available for a long time but I guess the support won't and if you stick with DSLR's you'll not benefit from any technology improvements.

I moved from Nikon D7200 to Sony A6xxx to Sony A7M3; so I don't have any direct knowledge of the Nikon Z's ,but I familiar with Nikon ergonomics.

Egonomics wise I do not see a big difference between Nikon and Sony FF; I wasn't over keen on the ergonomics of the Sony A6xxxx. If you spend the time to get to know the camera then you are good.

Lenses wise Sony is ahead though I'm sure Nikon will catch up; I here the Nikon Z lenses are great. Sony also has the benefit of third party lenses if that interests you; there are some very good reviews of the Tamron and Sigma zooms. I have the Tamron 17-28 F2.8; which I here compares favourably to the 16-35GM (but pricey for me that one!)

Someone mentioned battery life...from the A7iii on Sony significantly improved battery life and it is double that of the Nikon Z's.

Weather sealing I here the Nikons are better but the A7Riv has seen improvements.

I think the Nikons have in camera raw processing the Sony's do not.

Both have IBIS.

Hamish Frost uses a Sony A7iii maybe amongst other cameras.....

or you could just get a Panasonic MFT ; )

In reply to kevin stephens:

I’m quite traditional in my approach to photography and to be honest I’d have been happy shooting on Velvia and Kodachrome, however even if your shooting a prime lens in Aperture priority or manual there are things that can work alongside the basics like IBS, focus and exposure peaking, and the dynamic range and low light performance if the sensor.

one of the reasons I started down this line of thinking I was out in Scotland with a fellow photographer/climber the weather was pretty crap for photography but we persisted,  the Oly however couldn’t compete when the light got really low, it held its own against the Sony during the day in the crap weather. 
with regards the size of lenses Nikon don’t seem to be cutting down the size of the pro mirrorless  lenses (the 14-30 seems like a good compact lens)were as Sony have made some of their GM lenses pretty small compared to a FF equivalent .

well have to see how it develops with the Nikon roadmap and certainly not something I’m going to rush into.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Like I said before you obviously have not used the OM-D E-M1 MkII or the new MkIII...

You are basing your whole "M4/3 can't cope in low light" on the E-M5 (MkI or MkII)..which is a totally different sensor to the E-M1 MkII & MkIII...

as for back focus issues again it all depends on the lens..use the Oly PRO series..I have no problems...

In reply to jethro kiernan:

As a matter of interest, what is the advantage of IBS over lens stabilisation? The Fuji lens stabilisation is superb. In decent light I can use my 100-400 at 400 with a x1.4 converter handheld for wildlife and get pin sharp photos.

In reply to Snowdave:

The back focus problem was with the Nikon DSLR System it’s not really a thing with mirrorless systems. 
As for the limits thing, that’s from experience of using both FF system and MFT in similar situations and the MFT does have a distinct cut of in its ability in low light,

This hasn’t stopped me singing MFTs praise on these forums when people are looking for a recommendation for a good mountain camera.

I’m sure the sensor development between mkII and the mkIII has been good (but mainly focused on video) but conversely there will have been significant improvements in FF between my D810 and the new sensors in the D850 Z6/7 and Sony’s.

im really looking for what system gives me the best of both worlds between the Oly system and big bulky old school ff DSLR 

long term I can’t see as much development from Nikon on f mount lenses other than sports oriented lenses for the D6 (easily swallow up the Z adaptor with the size of them)I’m sure Nikon are only a generation or two from dropping DSLRS  if they are going to survive.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

You state you have used the E-M5..but not which Mk.....so I can only presume the Mk1 or MkII...

The E-M5 is not the top end Oly M/43 camera & has never had the top spec sensor or image processor, or body....etc., etc.

That is reserved for the E-M1 series which for the past 2yrs includes the MkII the new MkIII or the "X".

All have a 20MP sensor which is bigger than the E-M5 MkI or MkII at 16MP

The E-M1 MkIII & "X" have the same version of 20MP sensor which allows them to do hand held high res 50MP JPEGS & upto 80MP RAW. The "X" has two of the "TruePic 8" image processors, the E-M1 MkIII has the brand new "TruePic 9" processor....

Those Sonys aren't as splash/dust low temp proof as the Oly either..& you said you wanted weatherproofing etc..

...so really I think you are falling for the old "FF is best in low light & highest pixel count so must have" mantra/hype without fully testing the current top end M4/3 cameras.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I was just reading about this recently and things the article noted were: convenience to use “any” lenses, possible extra performance when combined with dedicated lens based IS (like with some Olympus lenses on an Olympus body), generally quieter in operation as lens based IS can be noisy and picked up if using built in mics when video recording, reduced cost as IS lenses tend to be dearer, and better for lower light since IS lenses tend to have slower max apertures.

On the other hand it said that IBIS was not so good for longer focal length lens (without lens IS) which I presume is why the likes of Olympus are using lens IS in at least some of their longer lenses.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I believe the xt4 has much improved battery life too. So maybe an xt4 is your perfect choice between MFT and FF🙂

In reply to jethro kiernan:

M4/3 also has better IBIS as its easier to move a physically smaller sensor than a larger one.
FF normally has a 2 stop advantage over M4/3 just accounting for sensor size. If you take the better M4/3 IBIS into account, then the difference may only be 0-1 stop in favour of FF. 

In reply to Snowdave:

No I understand your point, but you need to understand mine, I’m using a four year old sensor on my D810 and a four year old sensor on OMD em5 mkII, are you saying the the OMD em5 mkIII has leapfrogged current FF sensor technology from Nikon and Sony? If the current technology has evolved roughly in parallel then I think I’m safe in saying the differences between the two systems still remain in the shooting conditions I have gone to great lengths to explain.

The whole point of posting on here is to get constructive real world feed back from people who use cameras in the mountains, the Olympus OMD em5 routinely gets recommendations on here not least by myself, I think the level of fanboy fanaticism is not very helpful and should be reserved for DP review forums

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I guess you've got the option of the FTZ adaptor for your Nikon lenses? Though I here performance isn't at the same level as native lenses. 

In reply to jethro kiernan:

You are NOT understanding what I am posting....

I am talking about the OM-D E-M1 (MkII or MkIII), or the "E-M1X"....which are totally different cameras & way better than the your E-M5 MkII or the newer E-M5 MkIII…& are PRO spec...& these Oly cameras will do things that the Sony & Nikon CAN'T do...

You are basing your M4/3 experience on your low spec 16MP sensor when much high spec 20MP sensors & better image processor in better camera bodies are made in the top end Oly E-M1 series...the E-M5 series regardless of "Mk" is a lower tier series & always will be...

I strongly suggest you go to an Oly "try" day & try their current top end E-M1 series....either MkIII or "X"...

& BTW I use an Oly E-M1 MkII with 12-40mm f2.8PRO in the mountains..& have had a play with virtually all their other cameras as I have been on several of their "try" days with the Oly reps at my local Oly dealer....who happens to be just about the best camera shop in the UK...(Ffordes)

In reply to Paulhesketh:

The adapter would just be a stop gap, I think, probably very useful if you have some expensive telephoto lenses but slightly defeats the object with more run of the mill lenses.

In reply to Snowdave:

You're still missing the point.

Physics, that is...

And no matter how great enginerds there are at Oly (or Panasonic), they can't go past a few physical facts.

And that is, FF or any given time/generation will be better in low light, have less noise and also have better dynamic range. Simple fact.

So could the new Oly X or 1 be good enough... perhaps, but the FF stuff will again be a tad better this might be what Jethro is after.

In reply to HeMa:

If he is shooting dark coloured objects in a darkened room with no light & at 5 digit ISO values yes 35mm FF digital sensor is better than M4/3 when pixel peeping the image at 100%....

But if that's his mission go buy a Fuji medium format digital camera (GFX 50 or GFX100) which will be vastly better image in low light than any 35mm FF sensor …...all due to physics...

In reply to Snowdave:

Could be that Jethro thinks that mirrorless FF is the sweet spot for the performance he needs and he just wanted input into the best FF choice. 

MF better performance but heavy; MFT lower performance but portable...

In reply to Paulhesketh:

It seems that a drawback of mirrorless is having to ditch all your quality dslr lenses and start again at great expense. The latest compact APS DSLRs are only a couple of years behind full frame (dslr or mirrorless) in terms of dynamic range (eg Pentax KP 12.5 stops at iso 100) and just as compact as many full frame mirrorless, but still able to use legacy lenses, not to mention optical viewfinder. 

In reply to Snowdave:

Just looking for the happy compromise 😏carrying the Fuji up a mountain would be a mission. 
I’m not looking to shoot ninjas in a dark room that’s a little niche for me, from personal experience with both systems in the field and with Lightroom an example of which I gave you the Olympus struggles in that 10% of situations, the dawn/dusk high dynamic range possibly high iso,  but that 10% is an area I quite enjoy working in and full frame has the physics behind it to back up my real world experience.

I like the advice on here because it is generally based upon coming back with a good image and what works for people and not pixel peeping. MFT has some good advocates on here and there  are some awesome galleries shot on MFT and looking through the pictures most are shot on APC see Roberts awesome gallery https://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.php?id=46560

 and you’ll still see classic mountain cameras like the Panasonic lx-7 being used and recommended.

its all about horses and courses 😀

In reply to Snowdave:

Mantra/hype? Not in my experience. I'm currently running a current generation top-end MFT camera (G9) and an oldish FF DSLR (6d Mk1) and in low light conditions it's no contest - the 6d outperforms the G9 by 2 stops (in terms of noise, especially if you wind back the G9's stupid noise reduction settings to a more sensible level). The G9 is a brilliant camera for daylight wildlife (with the 100-400mm lens), but there are time when I still pick up the 6d (with 35mm f1.4 or 70-200mm f2.8).

As for IBIS, I was blown away by the G9's stabilisation (in body + in lens), but that's only half the story. For wildlife you often need fast shutter speed to freeze the target's movement and stabilisation does nothing for that. You still need good high-ISO performance and here again FF can give you the edge.

So I'm with Jethro on this one - MFT is great most of the time, but in low light (dawn, dusk, forest...) FF still has the edge by some margin.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Low light you say, MFT not cutting it?

Then why not go Hassleblad version one or two?

youtube.com/watch?v=GH-xVrOcdv0&

In reply to The Lemming:

You mean the DJI medium format 😀

In reply to jethro kiernan:

& again you are referring to the lower spec & lower tier E-M5 that you have..

Go try the top spec new E-M1 MkIII or the E-M1-X..way better & difference between them & 35mm full frame is smaller than comparing your E-M5....

Go look up Tesni Ward or Andy Rouse....or Charlie Phillips, all now use Oly E-M1-X....Andy & Charlie moved of their own accord & not because of "freebies"..Tesni moved of her own accord & became an Oly "ambassador"

In reply to Marek:

Not with Oly...E-M1-X

Oly has "pro-capture" mode......upto 35frames it records between half & full press of the shutter as 20.37MP RAW files

Or put camera in AF/AE (fixed) & get 60fps....

or 18fps with tracking AF/AE....

plus the tracking AF has intelligent subject tracking which is the latest tracking on the market...

plus 6 stop of IBS with the Oly 300mm f4 (equivalent to 600mm focal length for 35mm)

that's how you get the picture you want when shooting fast moving wildlife!

go ask Tesni Ward, Andy Rouse etc...as its the kit they use...

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Nope..

Your Nikon D810 body only inc battery is 980g...

the Fuji medium format GFX 50 is 775g in "R" spec or 825g in "S" spec... 

so lighter & rated down to -10C..& weatherproof...

35mm FF is dead (apart from legacy reasons) IMHO...medium format digital is way better & has come down in cost & weight …& M4/3 is getting way better image quality that it used to have....basically 35mm digital is caught in a pincer movement from these two systems...

In reply to Snowdave:

I'm sure the Oly is a fine camera (but not as good as my G9 ), but none of your points address the low-light issues (noisy high ISO) with MFT. As Jethro said, "horses for courses"...

In reply to Snowdave:

And presumably you think APS-C is dead too then.

I just don't think your arguments stack up; all other things being equal, a larger sensor always wins. I'm sure the Olympus cameras you are on about are superb, but the same technology with a larger sensor, even if it does not exist in a camera right now, inevitably will very soon.

In reply to Snowdave:

I'm no expert, this is a genuine question.

Is the Olympus om d em 1 mk 3 any better than the Sony a 6500? 

I'm sure you can get great pics from the Olympus, but as someone who has downsized from canon aps c DSLR to Sony aps c mirrorless to save weight and bulk, I'm not sure what the advantage would be to go to the Olympus with a smaller sensor in a bigger, heavier body.

In reply to mountain.martin:

The Oly is better, because it's never. Less so, if you'd compare against 6600.

And the Sony has slightly bigger cell, so physics comes into play.

Size as well, Oly is pretty much in the size of FF DSLRs. Sony is considerably smaller.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I went from a 6D to EM5 and then last year to an A7rii. It's amazing and I've not looked back. 

I've had it out in some pretty foul conditions this winter and the weather sealing is fine, and its just about small enough to be worth carrying on a route in a rucksack.

In reply to LucaC:

Good set of winter pic’s you’ve got there, good to see the camera getting a winter beasting

In reply to HeMa:

Does newer necessarily mean better?

So the Sony is better given the sensor size?

So the Sony is better for me as size and weight are an important factor.

In reply to mountain.martin:

Your Sony 6500 is 120x67x53 at 453g......the Oly E-M1MkIII is 134x90x69 at 580g...not a huge difference..

BUT the Oly is IPX1 rated & rated down to -10C...the Sony is not IPX rated & only down to 0C...

Plus the Sony only has 5stops IBS the Oly has upto 7.5stops

Plus the Oly can do 60fps, the Sony only 11fps

The OLy can do 50MP JPEGS or 80MP RAW high res shots, live composite, Starry Astrophotography mode, live ND filters, mases more pro flash modes when used with the bigger Oly flashes..etc, etc...plus loads of other spec features the Sony does NOT have...

Plus the whole advantage of M4/3 which is shorter & lighter lenses especially on longer focal lengths....

I have their -10c rated weatherproofed 40-150mm f2.8...so that's equivalent to 80-300mm f2.88 with a focus depth of f5.6...& its only 78x117mm at 760g!!

That's the other advantage of M4/3 over 35mm, you have twice the focus depth for the same light aperture due to the shorter lenses. This lets you shoot faster shutter speeds!

I spend 90% of my time at 200ISO....& hand holding say 1/30 at f11 even at 40mm, which gives me f22 focus depth...

If I'm doing BIF I'll shoot 800 or 1200ISO, & stick the 2x convertor on which gives me an equivalent 600mm 35mm focal length, f5.6 aperture light with f11 focal depth.

50Mp high res mode & Live composite are two very good features in the Oly which only they can do, & I use these quite a bit, plus the full gamut of flash stuff which I use in the studio...sorry even the other Sony 6600 & A7Rii that others have mentioned just are not as weatherproof/waterproof, or have as many modes, …..& that's all before you start having to carry much bigger & heavier lenses compared to M4/3....& at the ISO I shoot at, the pixel peeping difference is so minimal its not true!!…

PS I converted from Minolta 35mm cameras & equipment which Sony bought to get into camera making....

PPS & if I had to go 35mm Fullframe & give up -10C & weatherproofing & loads of other features I'd get the Sigma fullframe camera...way lighter & smaller than any other Fullframe 35mm ….(113x70x4mm5 at 370g (without battery/card))

In reply to mountain.martin:

When talking about processors and also the imaging sensor, pretty much yes.

Again, larger sensor will perform better in difficult conditions due to physics.

Yes. Albeit it's always a compromise (pic the criteria that matter for ya). Also you need to take into account for size & weight the lens. While in theory Sony should loose (bigger sensor -> bigger lenses), with lenses that do the bodies justice, they all end up being rather bulky (Pro-series lenses from Oly).

Which again brings the real criteria/needs back into the frame... Do you really need all the bells & whistles from those bodies.... You can actually get something smaller, that will perform 95 to 99% as well, with a nice lens for less than the body alone.

While I could sing praise to the brand & mount I use & prefer, but copy-pasting specs-sheets is not really helpful. And besides, there really isn't a modern system that is bad. They all have their pro's and con's, so some might suit ya better than others.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I love my A7R2.

The battery life isn't great, but I've got 4 batteries, and it's seconds to change one out. Reputedly the 3 and 4 series have better battery life too.

I don't mind the ergonomics at all. With the 85mm, I've got Eye-AF assigned to a button on the lens, every useful function is assigned to a button within easy reach. If you've got large hands, I can see it being a smidge awkward, but nothing a grip wouldn't sort.

The menus are as bad as everyone says, but once you're setup, you rarely go back into them.

I've taken it out in rain and sand without issue. 

The IBIS is good, and useful for non-IS lenses, including legacy lenses like a Helio 44-2.

And of course more importantly - the image quality is incredible. After 4-5 years, I'm still blown away at the level of detail of the photos, and the dynamic range you can pull from an uncompressed RAW file. Just bear in mind you'll need large & fast cards, and a lot of hard-drive space.

Third-party lenses are now coming on to the scene too, Sigma and Tamron in particular. The main downside is you don't have the large second-hand market you do with Canikon lenses. Whilst lenses are around, they're still not cheap.

If/when I ever need to change the body, I'll be sticking with the A7 series rather than going back to APS-C, DSLR or MFT. 

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I switched over from using a Nikon D810 to Sony Mirrorless soon after they brought out the A7RII a few years ago, mostly making the move on the basis of the A7RII combined with the native Sony 16-35mm f/4 being a much smaller and lighter setup than the D810 and Nikon equivalent and therefore much more suitable for big days in the mountains.

At first I'll be honest and say I wasn't a big fan of the Sony and found myself often reverting back to using the Nikon instead. Main gripes where when shooting in continuous mode the EVF would blackout momentarily between shots (which made it sometimes difficult to follow fast moving subjects whilst shooting), and the buffer would fill up pretty quickly, resulting in the whole camera locking up until it cleared. For climbing photography this wasn't a big deal as it's fairly slow-paced, but it wasn't great for shooting faster paced sports such as skiing. Other issues were things like poor battery life and a pretty unintuitive control layout, which meant you had to regularly delve into the complicated menu system to change key camera functions. I also far preferred the colour rendition and overall look of the Nikon RAW files vs the Sony's.

I stuck with using the mirrorless system though and eventually began to realise the big benefits of the EVF vs an optical viewfinder in a DSLR. When you look through an EVF you get a lot more information to help speed up the process of taking photos and get images right in camera - the most useful being that you see the what the final exposed image is going to look like when looking through the EVF. If you change your settings to increase or decrease your exposure, then you'll instantly see the effects of that looking through the EVF - so no more taking a test shot then checking the back screen to check you've exposed correctly. You can also set it up so you can see histograms, overlays showing where you're going to get blown out highlights, and focus peaking (showing which areas of what you're looking at are in focus, which makes using manual focus lenses really quick and easy).

Mirrorless technology also seems to be moving forwards much quicker. I now use an A7III as my main body, which is an incredible camera for the price, great for both stills and video. They've resolved the issues with the battery life (I often find one battery lasts for a whole day shooting), the EVF (blackout is now barely noticeable when shooting in continuous mode), and the slow buffer issues. The look of the Sony RAW files and colour rendition is also much better nowadays, and the sensor performs amazingly in low light when paired with a fast lens (can basically shoot slow moving subjects in the dark handheld at high ISO's and get usable shots). The menu systems and button layouts are much improved too, with plenty of customisable buttons and menus which allow you to remap most key functions to any button on the camera.

I have had some issues with weatherproofing, mostly around using the camera with the rear LCD screen flipped out and water getting in the area where the ribbon cable runs from the screen to the camera, resulting in the screen failing and needing replacing. This was only when using the camera in absolutely torrential rain though and in most conditions (snow/light rain etc) the weatherproofing is absolutely fine (I now use one of those camera shaped plastic bag things if I know the weather is going to be really bad). I've also used the new A9II and the A7RIV and they both have a more noticeably more robust body with what looks like better weather sealing around the buttons, so it's obviously an area that Sony are trying to improve. I think an A7IV is likely to be out this year so I'd guess there's a decent chance it'll have the newer body/better weather sealing in it.

It does seem that most of the interesting new technology advancements are coming in mirrorless cameras now (e.g. eye AF, 20fps continuous shooting, much cheaper mirrorless medium format cameras) rather than DSLR's, which probably shows the direction that the camera industry is going in.

In reply to Hamish Frost:

Thanks for the reply, certainly looks my most usual combination of wide zoom and body is more compact in Sony than the Nikon D810 good to hear in the real world that weather proofing isn’t as bad as the internet would have you believe.

I guess I’ll have to see what the lay of the land is with the Sony IV and where Nikon is with their lens roadmap.

I was a little concerned with faster action stuff as I sometimes dabble in some MTB photography but the mountains and climbing are the main focus.

one of the advantages I’ve found with EVF is you don’t get caught out with having the wrong settings dialled in when dealing with fast moving situations, it’s usually pretty obvious through the view finder.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I've got an A7R3 and love it. The weight is a big advantage, see here for a good comparison tool - https://www.mattpaynephotography.com/gallery/sony-mirrorless-system-backpac... 

Weather sealing is good but isn't perfect. I've been out in all-day grim rain in Iceland, everything worked but the EVF glass started to fog up. Not a huge issue since the screen was fine.

I might be free in North Wales 18th March afternoon / evening if you'd like to have a play with a full system.

In reply to tk421:

Thanks! I might take you up in that, I may take a quick trip to Scotland next week depending on weather, work and circumstances, if your heading to Llanberis PM me 😀

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I bought a used A7 in Autumn 2015 and it's been my main camera since. A few months back I added an A7RII.

Previous to that I had a Nikon full Dx system, plus Mamiya 645 and before that Olympus OM. I always loved the OM gear and have kept a close watch on their digital kit. At the time Nikon didn't having anything to offer in either DX or mirrorless.

I bought the A7 because:

a) 24mp full frame sensor for ~£500, still seems like a bargain

b) I could transition using all of my legacy glass from the above systems via cheap adapters,

c) still the smallest full frame digital body ever made (fixed lens RX1 excepted).

I didn't buy any native FE lenses, and expected to keep using the Nikon gear alongside. I didn't. I really enjoyed working with the old lenses on the A7 and the sensor is fantastic. Manual focus is very easy and precise. With a 35mm f/2.8 it's not much bigger than M4/3 and it's a lot closer to a digital OM4ti than anything Olympus have made.

I added a native lens every year and now have a bunch of very nice primes - 25/2.4 Loxia, 35/2.8 Zony, Voigtlander 65/2, 85/1.8 Batis plus a 70-200 zoom. All were bought with the prospect of the 42mp A7RII body on which the detail is impressive.

The kit is smaller than the Nikon and the results are better. It's a very different approach though, it was easier to get a shot with the Nikon plus zooms but not as enjoyable. A big part of the change was realising the market for climbing photos had evaporated and I didn't need a sport photographer fast auto mentality any more. The approach I use now is much more like how I used to shoot with the Mamiya, though much lighter and with a much higher success rate. Very satisfying.

I do have a Sony RX10 with 24-200 equiv for a compact auto do-it-all option, plus a Linhof Technikardan 45 and drum scanner for when I want to indulge myself. But the A7RII can out resolve it handheld sadly.

I think the A7 is still a winner because it's tiny and the sensor is great. The A7RII is significantly bigger and the viewfinder is not as good (trouble compressing 42MP into a video stream I think) - but the sensor is fantastic and it has IBIS. So I'd maybe look at the A7RIII if you want a high-res body.

In reply to Adam Long:

Cheers Adam

its amazing how nostalgia can play apart in our decisions, I still have my Nikon FM2 and I got a Nikon for my 18th birthday but I give myself a slap and remind myself that it’s just a corporation from across the Globe.

I really like the look of some of the primes available for the Sony (like the Sony GM 24 1.4) 
The issue with the back focus which only seemed to effect the primes really annoyed me as I didn’t feel comfortable using them 85mm and 50mm and although I find zooms handy and optically pretty good if your willing to spend some money there is something quite satisfying about using a good prime lens and it focuses the creative process a little, and obviously a fast prime can do things a f2.8 or f4 can’t with focus and back ground.

Are you around during Shaff might come over to the peak?

In reply to jethro kiernan:

If it's a big worry, the A9 is meant to be incredible for this kind of stuff, with the A7R3 almost as good. 

In reply to Durbs:

It’s not a big worry, the Oly struggled with fast moving stuff but that was never what it was for 😏

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Yeah I should be around that weekend. More likely to be out in the Peak than at the cinema though!

My only initial beef with the A7 was the shutter lag - a combination of actual shutter lag longer than a DSLR plus the viewfinder lag. I missed a couple of shots, but haven't really noticed it since.

You've been getting out with Eilir haven't you, isn't he on Sony?

In reply to Adam Long:

Yeh, that’s who I was comparing the blue hour shots with when shooting the Oly v Sony, the weather was pretty type 2 so not the time to borrow someone’s camera and nice G master lens 😀 

I’m  hoping the weather will be good out in the peak, I’ll probably catch one film with the kids and do a bit of socialising but aim for the peak. 

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Have you compared the DPR studio test scene performance might also be worth a check...

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=dayligh...

Here's a high ISO comparison of the A7iii, Z6, EM1 and A6600....

In reply to Paulhesketh:

The new E-M1MkIII will give virtually similar results to the "older" E-M1-X....as it has the brand new Truepic IX image processor...but with the added advantage of being in the smaller/lighter "portait gripless" E-M1 MkII body...

I don't shoot at anything higher that ISO1600 & most of my landscapes even in winter in Scotland are ISO200...& at that setting or the ISO1600 the above results are way closer...….& that's before you click on the tag "normal" for the Oly & change it to "pixel shift" which shows the camera in the High res 50Mp mode......

Also you forget that with M4/3 you get twice the depth of focus compared to 35MM FF at the same aperture f setting....so you can use a bigger aperture (lower number) & thus a faster shutter speed

Like I say for people wanting the best in dust/weather proofness & low temp proof & good picture quality for daytime landscapes the new Oly E-M1 MkIII is a good allrounder.