Camera reduction options...

What you see is what you get, including photography, displays, and video equipment.

Moderators: Dposcorp, SpotTheCat

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 07, 2014 4:48 pm

liquidsquid wrote:Why are people so hung up on this? When combined with a fast lens, how many times do you expect to go over iso800? Sure there is a rare occasion when you need it, but it is a case of diminishing returns. The best camera is the one you bring with you, and you will tend not to bring a big heavy SOB in the off-chance you need to shoot at iso-3gazillion. Low light performance sucks when shooting out of a drawer with the lens cap on.


There's two things.... one could simply be based on the type of photography you're expecting/wanting to do. Say... you love doing street photography at night. The other and one I think is closer to truth. Modern hobbyist photography seems to be as much (if not more) about gear hording than going out and taking photos. In turn, particular aspects of "image quality" are often given more emphasis than others because those aspects are frankly all about quality of your gear. Like noise. Countless times I've seen people obsess over and prise the low noise of an image that has been awfully composed. But hey.... that's all just my opinion. It's just easier for some people to spend more money to get "better" photos than scrutinizing their own skills.
slowriot
Gerbil First Class
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 07, 2014 4:54 pm

It's all about trade-offs.

If the RX10 had an APSC-sized sensor, then the lens required to get close to a 200mm zoom at f2.8 would make the camera ginormous, collapsible lens elements or no.

If you don't think that you'd need the 100mm plus zoom (35mm equiv) more than 5% of the time, then the current deal posted above for the Sony a6000 with the Zeiss 16-70mm, plus a cheaper zoom lens is a good bet. However, you still loose f2.8, probably making the benefits in low-light over the RX10 a wash. And you lose DoF effects. Unfortunately there are no fast E-mount zooms. (why not? It's not like they Sony is avoiding expensive lenses with the system. Maybe lens diameter required is just too large?)

I don't know, the RX10 is pretty hard to beat for a relatively compact, full-fuction all-in-one. But no, functionality and flexibility wise, none of these options will match your full-frame Nikon setup. However, if the priorities are size/weight and simplicity of kit, then...
cynan
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:30 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 07, 2014 5:35 pm

slowriot wrote:
liquidsquid wrote:Why are people so hung up on this? When combined with a fast lens, how many times do you expect to go over iso800? Sure there is a rare occasion when you need it, but it is a case of diminishing returns. The best camera is the one you bring with you, and you will tend not to bring a big heavy SOB in the off-chance you need to shoot at iso-3gazillion. Low light performance sucks when shooting out of a drawer with the lens cap on.


There's two things.... one could simply be based on the type of photography you're expecting/wanting to do. Say... you love doing street photography at night. The other and one I think is closer to truth. Modern hobbyist photography seems to be as much (if not more) about gear hording than going out and taking photos. In turn, particular aspects of "image quality" are often given more emphasis than others because those aspects are frankly all about quality of your gear. Like noise. Countless times I've seen people obsess over and prise the low noise of an image that has been awfully composed. But hey.... that's all just my opinion. It's just easier for some people to spend more money to get "better" photos than scrutinizing their own skills.


As a hobbyist, I've seen noise ruin too many shots- but I shoot mostly in lower light. If that hadn't been part of the request, then the RX10 would certainly make a ton of sense.
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5005
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Thu May 08, 2014 1:59 pm

slowriot wrote:Modern hobbyist photography seems to be as much (if not more) about gear hording than going out and taking photos.

Something I've been trying to break myself away from doing, actually. I get annoyed by clutter if the clutter is being caused by things I'm not actively using. Sell it away, give it away, or throw it away...but don't store it away if it doesn't have a clear purpose in this life.

At any rate, after reviewing suggestions and related info, it loos like I'm down to a trio of possibilities:

Sony. Alpha 6000 with a full range zoom included, either this or this. The logical telezoom would be the 55-210.
Pros: Very nice camera, higher resolution than what I have now, covers all the bases I want now.
Cons: Very few other lenses to choose from if I need to expand the collection in the future.
Cart total: $1150 or $1700

Fuji. Looks like an X-E1 with 18-55mm kit lens fits my needs (the X-E2 mainly adds WiFi and a higher-res viewscreen, but no major improvements in the sensor or continuous shooting rate, so I don't think the price difference is justified). Then, for a telezoom, add the XF 55-200.
Pros: Similar to the Sony kit but a wide range of primes available, plus a nifty ultrawide and a macro if I ever need to add them.
Cons: A bit low in resolution (16mp, vs. 18mp I have now and 24mp for the Sony).
Cart total: $1500

Panasonic. Probably the GX7 with 14-42mm kit lens. For now, add the 70-300 zoom and think about saving toward the 50-200 in the future.
Pros: Well-support MFT lens system and collection.
Cons: Possibly a bit larger and heavier system overall than the Sony or the Fuji.
Cart total: $1350

Futher suggestions or modificaitons?
He who laughs last, laughs first next time.
ludi
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5439
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm
Location: Sunny Colorado front range

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Thu May 08, 2014 3:44 pm

slowriot wrote:There's two things.... one could simply be based on the type of photography you're expecting/wanting to do. Say... you love doing street photography at night. The other and one I think is closer to truth. Modern hobbyist photography seems to be as much (if not more) about gear hording than going out and taking photos. In turn, particular aspects of "image quality" are often given more emphasis than others because those aspects are frankly all about quality of your gear. Like noise. Countless times I've seen people obsess over and prise the low noise of an image that has been awfully composed. But hey.... that's all just my opinion. It's just easier for some people to spend more money to get "better" photos than scrutinizing their own skills.


I'd post a response to this, but I'm too busy prepping pics for publication that were taken with a 16MP APS-C sensor and 44 year old mirror lens. 8)
Yeats
Gerbil XP
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: NJ, USA

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Thu May 08, 2014 4:44 pm

If you are really trying to reduce clutter then picking up a pile of lenses in the future shouldn't be a main concern. And the Fuji system doesn't have many lenses. I think the Sony E-mount system has more?

As such, The Sony a6000 kit for $1700 is vastly superior in almost every way. Sure, the zoom lens may not be quite as good as the one in the Fuji bundle, but will that be your primary use? The a6000 body, at least feature-wise, is just vastly superior in just about every way compared to the other camera bodies. Can shoot 2x frames per second, faster auto focus, higher resolution LCD, larger viewfinder, higher ISO, etc... And the Zeiss zoom will be tough to beat out of what you've listed. The A6000 kit with the kit zoom is much more meh. I'd only recommend this over the others if you were planning on upgrading to better lenses later.

Other than the x-trans sensor (which some people rave about for colors, and others don't really see the big deal), and decent quality kit lens, I don't really see what's so special about the Fuji kit for almost as much $$ as the Sony kit. (But then, of course, I've not used a modern fuji kit). That said, I wouldn't get too hung up over 16 vs 24 megapixels, all else considered.

In summary, if you can stomach the $1700, given the bundle with the Zeiss lens, I'd wadger that this will probably be the best overall, at least on paper, even for the money.

However, if $1700 is a bit much, then a cheaper micro 4/3 kit like the G7 kit might be appealing. But then why not go with the Olympus EM-5 (OM-D) body? For stills, it looks superior to the GX7 and not too much more expensive.



There is always the caveat that once you get said product in hand, you just might end up liking the feel of one body over the other, specs be damned. Do you have any means of fondling any of these bodies before hand?
cynan
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:30 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Thu May 08, 2014 4:52 pm

cynan wrote:If you are really trying to reduce clutter then picking up a pile of lenses in the future shouldn't be a main concern. And the Fuji system doesn't have many lenses. I think the Sony E-mount system has more?

As such, The Sony a6000 kit for $1700 is vastly superior in almost every way. Sure, the zoom lens may not be quite as good as the one in the Fuji bundle, but will that be your primary use? The a6000 body, at least feature-wise, is just vastly superior in just about every way compared to the other camera bodies. Can shoot 2x frames per second, faster auto focus, higher resolution LCD, larger viewfinder, higher ISO, etc... And the Zeiss zoom will be tough to beat out of what you've listed. The A6000 kit with the kit zoom is much more meh. I'd only recommend this over the others if you were planning on upgrading to better lenses later.

Other than the x-trans sensor (which some people rave about for colors, and others don't really see the big deal), and decent quality kit lens, I don't really see what's so special about the Fuji kit for almost as much $$ as the Sony kit. (But then, of course, I've not used a modern fuji kit). That said, I wouldn't get too hung up over 16 vs 25 megapixels, all else considered.

In summary, if you can stomach the $1700, given the bundle with the Zeiss lens, I'd wadger that this will probably be the best overall, at least on paper, even for the money.

However, if $1700 is a bit much, then a cheaper micro 4/3 kit like the G7 kit might be appealing. But then why not go with the Olympus EM-5 (OM-D) body? For stills, it looks superior to the GX7 and not too much more expensive.



There is always the caveat that once you get said product in hand, you just might end up liking the feel of one body over the other, specs be damned. Do you have any means of fondling any of these bodies before hand?


Have you used any of these cameras? It seems a large stretch to make recommendations on stuff you have just read about.

The feature stuff amuses me. The results are what matter, I don't even use auto focus all that much as I don't like where it focuses a lot of the time.

There is a large selection of Fuji X examples in my sig link.
Fuji X-E1 Leica Elmar 135 4 XF60mm 2.4 Macro | Zeiss FE 35mm 2.8
http://carnagepro.com
"Everything ... they eat everything, and fear is their bacon bits."
PenGun
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:48 pm
Location: BC Canada

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Thu May 08, 2014 5:00 pm

The one thing I dont' like about the OM-D EM-5 is that it has a bulky viewfinder on top of the housing, even though there is no optical prism to be accommodated. I might still consider it, given the price.
He who laughs last, laughs first next time.
ludi
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5439
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm
Location: Sunny Colorado front range

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Thu May 08, 2014 5:32 pm

cynan wrote:If you are really trying to reduce clutter then picking up a pile of lenses in the future shouldn't be a main concern. And the Fuji system doesn't have many lenses. I think the Sony E-mount system has more?


How relevant is the number of lenses a system has, versus the system having the lenses you want?
Yeats
Gerbil XP
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: NJ, USA

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Thu May 08, 2014 7:33 pm

Yeats wrote:
cynan wrote:If you are really trying to reduce clutter then picking up a pile of lenses in the future shouldn't be a main concern. And the Fuji system doesn't have many lenses. I think the Sony E-mount system has more?


How relevant is the number of lenses a system has, versus the system having the lenses you want?


Bingo.
Sony a7
Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 SSM, 24-70/4 SSM
Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, 100-300 APO, 100/2, 500/8
TheEmrys
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 8:22 pm
Location: Northern Colorado

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Thu May 08, 2014 11:33 pm

TheEmrys wrote:
Yeats wrote:
cynan wrote:If you are really trying to reduce clutter then picking up a pile of lenses in the future shouldn't be a main concern. And the Fuji system doesn't have many lenses. I think the Sony E-mount system has more?


How relevant is the number of lenses a system has, versus the system having the lenses you want?


Bingo.

Indeed...I was noticing that the Fuji system has a very nice number of compact primes as well as an ultrawide zoom. Will I need all of them? Never. Is it possible I will need one or two of them at some point, final focal length TBD? Yup.
He who laughs last, laughs first next time.
ludi
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5439
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm
Location: Sunny Colorado front range

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Fri May 09, 2014 9:37 am

ludi wrote:The one thing I dont' like about the OM-D EM-5 is that it has a bulky viewfinder on top of the housing, even though there is no optical prism to be accommodated. I might still consider it, given the price.


My a7 has this. I love it. What it allows me to do is shoot with both eyes open and look over the camera body with my left eye. It helps me to nail the WB and exposure without having to chimp. I just match what I view with the EVF and I am set. The a6000 allows this as well, with the viewfinder on the left of the body.

Also, the mft body is larger than the a6000, but overall, the lenses for the mft system will be significantly smaller (i.e. 35-100/2.8 vs. 70-200/2.8).

Found this, its pretty cool for looking at mft options. http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/lense.html

It also has the weights, which is very useful. The more I look at mft, the more I am impressed with their system. Shoot, you could get the new pancake zoom 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 EZ with an EM-10, which is an awfully good camera. And it looks awfully good in silver. Man, for $800 you get the body and the lens. Add in a $100 discount on two lenses if you get the 100-300 Zuiko and 25/1.8 with it, and your total is up to $1547. If you need a faster zoom, you can do it easily. but this price is hard to overlook.

You can add the 35-100/2.8 for $1400 (wiping out savings) or Zuiko 75/1.8 (which, wow, nicely fast) which would be a fast 150mm for $800 or the 45/1.8 for $399. But you could easily skip this step and stick with the above kit.
Sony a7
Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 SSM, 24-70/4 SSM
Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, 100-300 APO, 100/2, 500/8
TheEmrys
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 8:22 pm
Location: Northern Colorado

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Fri May 09, 2014 11:18 am

Hmm...you might have a sale on the EM10. Was just noticing that it maintains the EM5's WiFi-control-by-smartphone, which would be something I would definitely use. Hmm...
He who laughs last, laughs first next time.
ludi
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5439
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 10:47 pm
Location: Sunny Colorado front range

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Mon May 12, 2014 1:28 pm

PenGun wrote:
Have you used any of these cameras? It seems a large stretch to make recommendations on stuff you have just read about.

The feature stuff amuses me. The results are what matter, I don't even use auto focus all that much as I don't like where it focuses a lot of the time.

There is a large selection of Fuji X examples in my sig link.


I've never touched a digital Fuji system (other than point and shoots). I've used a Sony Nex-6 (Precursor to the a6000) and Nex-5R (same as the NEX-6 without the EVF and a couple of controls) with good results. I've also used an Olympus micro 4/3 system briefly (it was a friend's) but not something as nice or quite as recent as the OMD).

No, I don't consider myself an expert. I was mostly giving an opinion based mainly on specs and some familiarity with the Sony system. Fuji users are absolutely free to overrule or add counterpoint to anything I say.

Though the selection of Fuji X-mount lenses may be a bit small so far, I do agree that they do seem a little more well-rounded than what Sony currently offers, though most Fuji lenses are quite pricey (but I suppose you get what you pay for). The problem with the Sony E-mount selection is that half of the cheaper lenses aren't that great, and the only alternative to these at many focal lengths is expensive Zeiss glass. And the lack of any really fast/wide primes. And a Zoom with a max aperture of f2.8. No idea why the latter doesn't exist yet (though the simple explanation for both is that such lenses are obviously more expensive to make). So yeah. I'd be nice if Sony stepped up its game with it's non-Zeiss branded lenses.

Feature-wise and shooting performance-wise, it's pretty tough to compete with the Sonys from a value perspective. But I do agree that many of these features are not crucial to the end result in many cases. However, as this is a tech enthusiast site (rather than a photography site)...

If you do want to pick up more high quality fast primes in the near future, or if a fast zoom (f2.8 ) is important, then yeah, perhaps the Sony system is not the best. If you you have a bit deeper pockets (can afford the lenses), then Fuji could very well be the best choice, or a Micro 4/3 to save you a bit of $$ vs the Fuji.

However, future lens purchases and f2.8 zoom aside, I still think the Sony kit for $1700 is probably the best bang for the buck out of the 3 kits the OP listed.

PenGun wrote:The more I look at mft, the more I am impressed with their system. Shoot, you could get the new pancake zoom 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 EZ with an EM-10, which is an awfully good camera. And it looks awfully good in silver. Man, for $800 you get the body and the lens.


You can get the Sony a6000 with the Pancake zoom for $800 as well. Sure the Sony kit zoom is not that great, but then neither is the 14-42mm EZ Oly (though perhaps a bit better than the Sony). However, the a6000 is the better body vs the EM-10 (if you care about things like faster auto focus (partly due to hybrid phase/contrast detect), faster burst rate, larger sensor, etc). The one thing the EM-10 body offers is internal lens stabilization. But I have no idea how well the cheaper 3-axis stabilization works vs the 5-axis in the EM-5 and EM-10.
cynan
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:30 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Mon May 12, 2014 1:56 pm

The 3-axis is awfully good. Also, the other thing I love about the mft system is that the lenses are markedly smaller than the NEX's. Don't get me wrong, I love my a7, but physics can only be bent so far. A mft system will always be smaller, as a system, even if the NEX bodies are smaller. I love the NEX-6, as a camera. But, you still have to put some bigger glass off the end of them, and the image stabilization and EVF's of Olympus are the class of the world.
Sony a7
Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 SSM, 24-70/4 SSM
Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, 100-300 APO, 100/2, 500/8
TheEmrys
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 8:22 pm
Location: Northern Colorado

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Mon May 12, 2014 2:29 pm

According to this, Sony is planning to release an f2.8 zoom for the APSC E-mount system. 'Bout time.

Edit: Added "zoom"
Last edited by cynan on Mon May 12, 2014 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
cynan
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:30 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Mon May 12, 2014 2:38 pm

I kid, but wouldn't a bunch of brighter, more efficient light bulbs in the house be a cheaper solution? ;-)

I was demolished over at DPR for complaining about the artificial tone of flash pictures. Many photographers are very poor at using the flash in a subtle fashion, and I think they overuse them in places where they should not be used. What good is a low-noise flash-filled image if the person looks like they are caught in the headlights after the first picture? My God it was like I killed three children to these guys when I suggested that flash use should be re-thought when photographing informal parts of weddings. The current crop of sensors blows film out of the water for low-light photography, but some folks just cant dispense with "how it has always been done". Somehow I think the feeling is they don't feel pro without a pile of flash equipment blaring away.

If I can ID flash pictures so easily, that means the person using the flash is over-doing it. It should be subtle, not look like the subject is witnessing a thermonuclear explosion. Shadows should exist when your subject is outside with a hat on. It doesn't have to be flat-black either.

My point? I am right there with you on indoor photography. However I also don't pixel-peep any more, so I am more than satisfied with micro 4/3 quality at ISO3200. Sure I can see noise on my monitor and quite a bit of it, but when I print them? They look great. The act of printing goes a long ways for making the image pleasing to the eye, even at 8.5 x 11.
liquidsquid
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2447
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 10:49 am
Location: New York

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Mon May 12, 2014 2:40 pm

TheEmrys wrote:The 3-axis is awfully good. Also, the other thing I love about the mft system is that the lenses are markedly smaller than the NEX's. Don't get me wrong, I love my a7, but physics can only be bent so far. A mft system will always be smaller, as a system, even if the NEX bodies are smaller. I love the NEX-6, as a camera. But, you still have to put some bigger glass off the end of them, and the image stabilization and EVF's of Olympus are the class of the world.


It's the trade off you pay for the larger sensor. (And having the image stabilization in the lens helps keep the body size to a minimum - though in camera is nice). If you already have relatively recent full frame or APSC DSLR (or A7R/Leica FF) system then maybe the mft system would be the better option for a compact companion. If this is your only system, as it is mine, I thought that opting for something with an APSC-sized sensor would be a bit more flexible overall. The OP mentioned he was interested in low light performance (and that he was trading in a larger sensor body to get it).
cynan
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:30 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Mon May 12, 2014 3:11 pm

cynan wrote:According to this, Sony is planning to release an f2.8 zoom for the APSC E-mount system. 'Bout time.

Edit: Added "zoom"


That's definitely good news. The f/2.8 standard zoom that they're including with the a77 is supposed to be pretty good, one hopes that they can push outstanding optics into the smaller form factor to increase the flexibility of their APS-C mirrorless system.
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5005
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Tue May 13, 2014 4:21 pm

I would love to see them revive some of the Minolta focal lengths, though. Maybe a 24-50/2.8 to save on size. The APS-C only 16-50/2.8 A Mount kit lens is a terrific lens. But awfully huge. It really should have gotten the G designation. I wish DXO would get off their duff's and test some of Sony's best lenses (135/1.8, 16-50/2.8). They have been in "preview" stage for years now.
Sony a7
Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 SSM, 24-70/4 SSM
Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, 100-300 APO, 100/2, 500/8
TheEmrys
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 8:22 pm
Location: Northern Colorado

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Tue May 13, 2014 7:01 pm

You guys and your zooms. You understand that for the same money a straight lens will give you higher quality, I'm pretty sure, so convenience trumps quality, is that it?

Now I don't need the longer Fuji 55-200, it's unlikely I'll ever own one.
Fuji X-E1 Leica Elmar 135 4 XF60mm 2.4 Macro | Zeiss FE 35mm 2.8
http://carnagepro.com
"Everything ... they eat everything, and fear is their bacon bits."
PenGun
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:48 pm
Location: BC Canada

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Tue May 13, 2014 7:12 pm

PenGun wrote:You guys and your zooms.

One of the key items pushing me toward FF Nikon bodies is the best piece of glass I own and one that's not seen light in over 20 years, namely an MF Nikkor AI-S 28-85 3.5/4.5. It currently sits on an ancient N2000 film body which I had hoped to give to the daughter as a "school camera", but film is dead in that space. Looks like she gets the Oly E-500 4/3 rig with a pair of mid-grade zooms (the kits were horrible) when I finally upgrade.
It is one of the blessings of old friends that you can afford to be stupid with them. Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 20253
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Tue May 13, 2014 7:26 pm

Captain Ned wrote:
PenGun wrote:You guys and your zooms.

One of the key items pushing me toward FF Nikon bodies is the best piece of glass I own and one that's not seen light in over 20 years, namely an MF Nikkor AI-S 28-85 3.5/4.5. It currently sits on an ancient N2000 film body which I had hoped to give to the daughter as a "school camera", but film is dead in that space. Looks like she gets the Oly E-500 4/3 rig with a pair of mid-grade zooms (the kits were horrible) when I finally upgrade.


That's like, a kit lens? I admit to being ignorant on old Nikkors :).

But if you want the best FF zooms, they're all made by Canon (sans the 14-24/2.8G). Same for nearly all of the crop zooms too.
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5005
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Tue May 13, 2014 7:58 pm

Best is awful subjective. Best feel? Best rendition? Best color? Just sharpness? Distortion and vignetting? And Nikon's offerings are as good as any at the 70-200/4 or 80-400. And Tamron has the best and only superb 24-70/2.8 that is stabilized.
Sony a7
Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 SSM, 24-70/4 SSM
Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, 100-300 APO, 100/2, 500/8
TheEmrys
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 8:22 pm
Location: Northern Colorado

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Tue May 13, 2014 8:19 pm

TheEmrys wrote:Best is awful subjective. Best feel? Best rendition? Best color? Just sharpness? Distortion and vignetting? And Nikon's offerings are as good as any at the 70-200/4 or 80-400. And Tamron has the best and only superb 24-70/2.8 that is stabilized.


Best image quality, handling, autofocus, and that's on average- everyone trades blows for specific purposes. For example, Nikon's 14-24/2.8G is the standard in landscape zooms, but their PJ UWA zoom, the 17-35/2.8G, doesn't hold a candle to Canon's 16-35/2.8L II for PJ work, i.e. wide-open performance. Yet the Nikkor actually sharpens up better when stopped down, making it useful for landscape/interior work.

So take the pro zooms as a larger example: the 16-35/2.8L II, despite it's weaknesses, is best-in-class for PJ work; the 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, and 200-400/4L 1.4x are unequaled. Step back from those, and the 17-40L is an excellent UWA zoom when stopped down where you'd actually use it, the 24-70/4L and 24-105/4L are both better than the 24-85G and 24-120G, and the 70-200/4L IS is slightly (but insignificantly) ahead of the 70-200/4G.

And while that new 80-400G is sharp as all get out, it has some damn ugly bokeh, is overpriced, large and heavy, and is noted for not having the snappiest AF. Canon's 100-400L is ancient but affordable, has notably snappy AF capable of BIF, has great handling, and has much smoother rendering.

We actually blame Nikon for Canon being somewhat complacent with the 100-400L update and 7D II release, as Nikon's 80-400G and D7100 pair is somewhat underwhelming for action-oriented shooters. A 7D or 70D and 100-400L or 400/5.6L will still get you more keepers than the overpriced Nikon kit.

And as for Tamron? More power to them. Their 24-70/2.8 VC and 70-200/2.8 VC lenses are very good optically, if not Canon-good, and definitely put pricing pressure on the market, especially on Nikon. And that 24-70/2.8 VC has just made it back into my sights, as I need something faster than my 24-105/4L and cheaper than Canon's top-end lens :).
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Gerbil Elder
 
Posts: 5005
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 5:06 am

TheEmrys wrote:Best is awful subjective. Best feel? Best rendition? Best color? Just sharpness? Distortion and vignetting? And Nikon's offerings are as good as any at the 70-200/4 or 80-400. And Tamron has the best and only superb 24-70/2.8 that is stabilized.

Best compared to the Oly 4/3 glass I own (14-54 & 50-150). The Nikkor was no kit lens and set my Dad back a decent chunk of change when I received it as an Xmas gift somewhere in the mid-'80s.
It is one of the blessings of old friends that you can afford to be stupid with them. Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Captain Ned
Global Moderator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 20253
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 2:42 pm

PenGun wrote:You guys and your zooms. You understand that for the same money a straight lens will give you higher quality, I'm pretty sure, so convenience trumps quality, is that it?.


Sometimes you are in adverse environmental conditions where changing lenses can be difficult. And if you're shooting wildlife, zooms can be awfully useful if you are shooting a large quarry - say, a bear - and it moves closer than anticipated. That said, I prefer primes, simply because it forces me to compose more creatively... but all lenses have their place.
Yeats
Gerbil XP
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: NJ, USA

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 2:45 pm

TheEmrys wrote:Best is awful subjective.


"Best" is a term often thrown around by folks who don't know better.
Last edited by Yeats on Wed May 14, 2014 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yeats
Gerbil XP
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: NJ, USA

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 2:55 pm

TheEmrys wrote:I wish DXO would get off their duff's and test some of Sony's best lenses (135/1.8, 16-50/2.8). They have been in "preview" stage for years now.


Why? Who cares what DXO tests show? Get a lens and make pics with it. If you like it, keep it. If you don't, return it.
Yeats
Gerbil XP
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: NJ, USA

Re: Camera reduction options...

Postposted on Wed May 14, 2014 3:02 pm

Airmantharp wrote:Best image quality, handling, autofocus, and that's on average- everyone trades blows for specific purposes. For example....

And while that new 80-400G is sharp as all get out, it has some damn ugly bokeh, is overpriced, large and heavy, and is noted for not having the snappiest AF. Canon's 100-400L is ancient but affordable, has notably snappy AF capable of BIF, has great handling, and has much smoother rendering.

We actually blame Nikon for Canon being somewhat complacent with the 100-400L update and 7D II release, as Nikon's 80-400G and D7100 pair is somewhat underwhelming for action-oriented shooters. A 7D or 70D and 100-400L or 400/5.6L will still get you more keepers than the overpriced Nikon kit.


And this is the problem in comparing zooms as "best." The Nikon 80-400 is often thought off as the best, however the Sony 70-400G is sharp wideopen at 400mm, and has f/4 aperture at 70mm (and can be used at 70mm). Ugly bokeh is highly common on long zooms (not quite so much the case on primes), with an odd correlation (not necessarily causation) with sharpness. The Canon is lacking resolution throughout the range, though the IS is pretty solid and with good bokeh. Zooms are, by design, meant to be more flexible. And that flexibility is a compromise of benefits. For me, shooting in low light wildlife, I would choose a Sony 70-400G because its sharp wide open. However, another may choose the Canon 100-400L as their best because it provides excellent bokeh, while still another won't care about wide open shooting, and would prefer a Nikon because its sharper stopped down. But anyone who cannot stand the (in my opinion, hideous) push-pull design of the Canon 100-400, it becomes easier. It really needs a refresh to catch up to the newest versions of Nikon's and Sony's.

The same issues surround the 24-70 L II. Optically, its a great lens. There isn't any denying it. But if you are a low-light shooter, missing the extra stops of light because of no IS, would say that no matter how good it is, if it can't shoot, its not worth it, and would choose the Tamron 24-70. Zooms are just so subjective, its really, really hard to use terms like "best."
Sony a7
Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 SSM, 24-70/4 SSM
Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, 100-300 APO, 100/2, 500/8
TheEmrys
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 8:22 pm
Location: Northern Colorado

PreviousNext

Return to Visual Haven

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests