eric_arnold

the D850 has a lot going for it. Obviously it appeals to those chasing resolution. But it is also somewhat of an all-purpose body, in that it has some speed, some performance capability, and Nikon's best implementation of video so far. The increased AF coverage is indeed a selling point, at least for me, since the only other performance-worthy FF DSLRs i know of which can also do this is the Sony A9. (i know you can get wide frame coverage on various mirrorless cams and the D500, but those are APS-C). when the D850 specs came out and i saw the DPReview write-up, i thought, hmmm...you could almost use it like a combination D5 and D800, by not always shooting at full-res (which is complete overkill for most action photography). in fact, in 25mp mode, it should have similar noise characteristics as the D5, at about $3k less. of coursde, this is somewhat too good to be true., right? you dont get exact D5 performance, because Nikon uses higher-voltage circuitry in its flagship bodies (going back at least to the D200). that's why the D750 isn't quite as good as a D3s in most AF aspects except maybe tracking. So we should expect some sort of tradeoff for getting a consumer body. The 850 is interesting in that its main strength and weakness are the same thing: that huge sensor. that's a strength because of impressive image quality and crop-ability, but a weakness in that all those megapixels have to be carefully micromanaged, which could alter one's shooting style. the other downside, as Thom Hogan has reported, is that the 24-70/2.8 and 70-2o0/2.8 II lag a bit on that sensor. So if i was thinking i can save $$ vs. a D5 or A9, there go the savings because i would have to upgrade my two main event lenses -- a problem i dont havewith my D750. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't mind having a D850, but my gut also tells me i don't need one at this exact moment. Still, it seems like a special camera with as much mojo as Nikon can currently muster, which will make many happy. i may check back in after i win the lottery or closer to end of life cycle. oh, one guess about the AWB differences: the more neutral picture style was probably engineered as a nod to videographers. i believe the camera has 4k although not oversampled 4k like the A9.

<p>i dont know that it makes sense to replace a $700 body with an $1800 is its a backup mainly needed for small/compact applications. you'll have to compromise somewhere, since the d3xx/d5xx series do compromise on button facility and the d500 costs a lot more and is pretty heavy. a d7xxx series body would sit somewhere in-between but only the pro-spec models like d300 and d500 have the same AF-On button as the pro-spec FX models. not sure if the d7000 has a lock on the focus button, but refurbs are pretty cheap and they may not last long at that price. i would think that, or a 7100/7200 might be your best compromise; not sure how much you're willing to spend, but you cant expect a less-expensive DX body to have the exact same ergonomics and UI as a pro-level FX body. </p>

<blockquote> <p>A99 2 ought to offer the perfect mix - the speed of the D5 with the resolution of the D810. So technically, it's interesting.</p> </blockquote> <p>Perhaps more interesting from a spec-sheet/engineering perspective than in real world usage. The buffer issue is one thing, but I can't imagine that this is the camera which will catalyze all Canon/Nikon pro sports photographers to switch systems. There are a plethora of reasons for this. Where does one even start? 1) Let's take the 42mp sensor. Which is unneccesary for pro sports/action photogs, and files of that size don't naturally lend themselves to a quick workflow, such as sending pics to your editors while the game is in progress for quick web blasts. The D810 has the same issue, as does the A7RII. You really don't need more than 16-20 mp for sports, and 12 was actually fine, except for wildlife shooters who needed to crop. 2) Where's the glass? As Andrew alluded, the SLT cameras were a neglected stepchild, locked in the closet while Sony developed its mirrorless system. There are a few lenses for it, but many more which are missing. How likely is it that anyone invested already into Canon or Nikon glass is gonna take a deep plunge into the A99 II? Nearly all pro sports photogs use one of the Big Two's products. For such a monumental shift to happen, the A99 II would have to be more than just a little innovative, it would have to be utterly phenomenal -- and you'd also have to have a committment from Sony to develop more lenses for it, which no one can guarantee right now. 3) The price point isn't as competitive as it would need to be to entice switchers. It would probably have to come in at 2/3rds of its initial MSRP to stand a chance of doing that. As it stands now, budget landscape shooters would probably look at the Pentax K-1 first, resolution and IQ junkies might metriculate to medium format Fuji, and legacy glass collectors might pick the A7RII. So, at best, we are talking about a niche product with questionable support. 4) I just don't see Sony making a serious run at the action/sports market. That would create expectations they may not be able to deliver among pros, so that leaves them with well-heeled enthusiasts who for whatever reason have passed on other cameras. 5) the introduction of this camera is completely counter-intuitive to Sony's mirrorless mantra of the past few years. if DSLRS are NOT the wave of the future, as Sony's marketing dept. has been trumpeting, why are you still making them? I could see Nikon making a mirrorless D5 before i could see the Sony catching on, for all the reasons stated above. As for a "perfect mix," i just don't think that will bear out when we consider practical uses and all the other factors which go into a camera system. The specs might look appealling on paper, but is there a compelling reason to get this camera if you're not already an A-mount user? Are you getting one, Andrew, or just singing it's praises from afar? <br> </p>

<p>probably not Nikon's best Photokina.</p> <blockquote> <p>It's true, the new Sony isn't an SLR - although it does have off-sensor phase-detect autofocus that should give it better subject tracking than the A7R2.</p> </blockquote> <p>is anyone really excited about this? there's no real reason you need focus tracking <em>and</em> 42mp. Even 36 mp is overkill in just about every conceivable scenario. Plus, anyone who already bought the A7RII and invested in lenses probably isn't going to get an A99 just for the addition of this feature, so it's difficult to imagine who this camera is for, other than those still clinging to Sony full-frame A-mount. At $3200, it's not a relative bargain, and may cannabalize A7 series sales, if it sells at all, rather than take a bite out of D810 and D5 sales. Other than the shock of the SLT line coming back from the dead, there's really nothing to see here. So far, it's looking like Panasonic is making the most aggessive moves at Photokina. i do hope Nikon recovers, but then they pre-launched the D5 and D500, which are both strong cameras from them. </p>

<blockquote> <p>The second tier China companies have made 23 1.7 lenses. Why not Sigma or anybody else?</p> </blockquote> <p>are you referring to the manual-focus mikaton, samyang, etc., lenses? those are hit and miss too. some are good lenses at sleeper prices, but quality control can be off on things like infinity stops and DoF scale markings. those lenses maybe make the most sense on m4/3 bodies where you need every stop of aperture you can get -- if you're a landscape shooter or trying to do low-light work. they make less sense for street photography, since zone focusing makes fast apertures irrelevant, and even less sense for sports/action where AF is a must. i think tokina just announced a 20/2 manual focus lens for Sony e-mount, which off the top has more appeal to videographers and tripod-using landscape photographers, since it cant make use of all those AF points. As for Tamron and Sigma, they concentrate on DSLRs because they still have the biggest market and R&D costs can be split between Canon and Nikon mounts. Since mirrorless lenses are smaller, these are more costs involved; it's not just a case of switching mounts. Sigma has launched a few primes for e-mount, but none of them were very fast up until the 30/1.4. that would probably have to sell well for them to delve deeper into this mount, or Sony would have to secure a bigger market share overall. Or both.</p> <blockquote> <p>the announcement of a new Sony A mount A99 camera</p> </blockquote> <p>Seems counter-intuitive to the argument that the A7RII is a replacement for DSLRs, though they may share the same 42mp sensor. Not to be snarky, but this announcement may get lost in the deluge of Photokina-centered gear from Panasonic: FZ1000 replacement, GH5, LX10, etc. Maybe there are some existing A-mount users left who havent switched to the A7 series, but all the complaints i hear about Sony are about the lack of lenses, not that they dont make enough bodies. </p>

<blockquote> <p> Eric, you seem to be saying that they would rather prod me to buy into their A7 series instead of giving me what I want in the smaller aps-c camera, but the problem is that I know what I want; I'm don't want the larger camera and larger lenses for what I do, </p> </blockquote> <p>To make a general point about sales and marketin, essentially all camera makers are doing the same thing: attempting to shift the point and shoot market they lost to smart phones to higher-profit-per-unit products. That's why we see the $1800 APS-C enthusiast cameras from Nikon and Fuji, as well as a $1300 1" sensor superzoom and the A7 series from Sony. The logic behind this is simple: if sales overall are down, and DSLRs have peaked --once every family has one, you either have to convince them to upgrade bodies or entice them to keep adding lenses --you can stabilize profits by selling higher-cost products.<br> <br> The Sony APS-C bodies are a bit of a condundrum: the A-mount was Sony's answer to DSLRs, but is hardly the leading edge of technology these days in a highly-competitive market, and tends to get lost in Sony's extensive product line. The A6000 series, meanwhile, carries the leftover DNA from the NEX cameras which were Sony's first real foray into mirrorless ILCs (if we dont count the SLT DSLRs which were much larger physically). No doubt, if Sony was starting from scratch, the E-mount bodies might have a slightly different aesthetic. As it is, they have a slightly maddening combination of consumer and advanced features which look good on a stat sheet but reveal a more complex picture when you peek under the hood. For instance, not addin direct AF point selection to a body with hundreds of PDAF points across the frame and a high per-second capture rate limits the camera's usefulness for enthusiasts. The relatively low cost of the A6000 is a bit misleading, since the 16-50 kit lens is almost universally-reviled and much better for video than stills -- it's at least a notch below Fuji's sleeper 18-55 in terms of IQ. That means that to maximize the 24mp sensor in the A6000 and A6300, you've looking at upgrading lenses immediately, which drives up the price. That's also when you'll find that there are n 2.8 zooms for E-mount, not even from 3rd-party manufacturers. The upshot of that is getting deep into the system is going to be expensive, if you can even get the lenses you ideally want, at which point the advantages over APS-C and full-frame DSLRs shrinks considerably, except for maybe overall compactness.<br> <br> So that's one paradigm. The other Sony paradigm is the A7 series. On paper these bodies look fantastic. in practice, they're more hit and miss. The prime lenses are pretty expensive, especially compared to some of Fuji's lineup, and the pro-spec zooms are just as big and costly as their DSLR full-frame counterparts. You wont get the same level of AF tracking as with DSLRs, so these bodies are more suited for landscapes and maybe portraits than sports and action. If you have the cash for a body and a few primes, they are capable of impressive results, but you'e paying 2x-3x what a similar APS-C system might cost, in some cases, and maybe even more than a comparable full frame system. That may or may not be acceptable, depending on actual photographic needs. Sony doesnt currently make an A7 sports-oriented camera, so there's no reason to suggest they're going after that market. The A6300 arguably has better sports performance than any current A7 body, but again we're back to available lenses.<br> <br> All of that is what Sony's marketing dept. won't tell you; their tactic is to emphasize all the technology in these bodies rather than the functionality. Technology by itself doesnt take pictures, though, so the overall user experience may or may not be better for any typical shooter than other systems, even those which are not full frame and/or have less megapixels than the highest-end Sonys. So, while Sony's obviously a marketing-driven company, they are also engineer-driven in terms of their aesthetic. They are trying very hard to be cutting-edge, and use that as a selling point, but that may not matter so much to the consumer if they can't get the lens they want at the price point they want. OTOH, if you dont care that much about ultimate optical quality or building a complete system, and can live with the kit lens, the A6000 is an affordable, compact, and versatile camera with some tricked-out features. i think eventually we'll see Sony's mirrorless APS-C line evolve into a complete, high-performance system, but right now it seems apparent Sony has some concerns about not cannibalizing their higher-priced A7 line. if you can get someone to pay $4000 or $5000 for a body and a few lenses, why would you try to hard-sell them on a different system at a much lower price point?<br> <br> I didnt get much into Fuji here, but they have less internal conflict than Sony, since they only have one sensor format to develop products for, not four as Sony does. if you combine that with an intentional photographer-centric approach and a very logical lens lineup, it's easy to see why they've maintained their niche.</p> <blockquote> <p> because I don't see a full commitment, I don't buy much more.</p> </blockquote> <p>this is a really key point. Sony probably wouldnt be happy to hear you're still using a NEX body and haven't gotten much deeper into the system or upgraded to a newer body, but you can't be the only person in that exact same position. For all of Sony's hype over the last two or three-years, their sales haven't really grown in terms of volume, though they are making up for unit sales drops by selling higher-end products. I honestly don't know that Sony's priority is a full commitment to APS-C, rather than continue to push high-megapixel full frame bodies and the demand for high-end lenses which comes along with them. Personally, i'd rather see an RX10 model with pro-level AF (or a fixed-lens RX10-like camera with APS-C sensor), but they have yet to deliver that either.<br> </p>

<p>LX100 would be a good choice along with an RX100. might stretch the budget a bit but IQ is better. also maybe the low-end Fujis, like the X-A series. i think the new model is under $400 with lens. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Large companies are driven by marketing and sales, not engineering. Engineers and programmers can be rented at reasonable rates, as well as most development.</p> </blockquote> <p>you're missing the point, probably purposefully. Sales is the final step in the photographic product development equation. i'm referring to philosophy and approach. There's a huge difference between Sony and Fuji in that regard. Fuji not only makes cameras with physical, tactile controls, but in a few short years, has rolled out a line of essential lenses covering everything from pancake primes to 2.8 telephotos. Sony's lens selection, spread across three different mounts, at times seems baffling. Sony's UI for years was confusing and became a running joke at DPReview; Fuji's don't get in the way of the user nearly as much. Even the latest Sony cameras have confusing trick modes on AF which are often counter-intuitive to what they should do. Sony covers up its camera's flaws by simply releasing new models, while Fuji is the industry leader in firmware updates and support for older bodies. Fuji;s 16 and 24 mp APS-C sensors punch way above their weight for IQ, while if Ming Thein is to be believed, Sony's touted stabilization actually induces errors into image capture and is closer to 2 stops than the claimed 4-5. Everything i just mentioned speaks to an engineer-driven company whose products look a little better on paper than they perform in the real world. Fuji is the opposite; they have a photographer-centric approach which has intangibles and and aesthetic you might not glean from reading a spec sheet.<br /> <br /> I'm not sure why some people have a compulsive need to defend Sony as if they were part of its marketing dept., rather than being able to have an objective view of what they're good at -- and what they're not so good at. It's predictable at this point, but also kind of tired. At the end of the day, i'm not saying Fuji is better than Sony, just that they have different approaches and aesthetics. if a Sony system does everything you need it to do, that's great. Ditto Fuji. But i see a lot of complaints about what Sony isn't doing, specifically around lenses. With Fuji, not so much.</p>

<p>there's a simple explanation: Sony is a huge global company, but maintaining three seperate lens mounts plus 1" sensor fixed-lens bodies puts a strain on their R&D resources. Sony is an engineer-oriented company; Fuji is a photography-oriented company. the new 23/2 is weather-resistant unlike the earlier 1.4. so it works better with the weather-sealed xT series. if i had a dollar for every time a Sony APS-C user complained about their lens selection, i could buy a full Leica system. In an ideal world, potential buyers would have thoroughly researched lens choices before buying, as the relatively affordable prices of the A6xxx series tends to be a bit misleading, if not a case of bait and switch, when quality lenses are added to the mix -- some of which dont actually exist, even from 3rd party suppliers. The most logical conclusion is that Sony wants you to buy one of their A7 series cameras and their more pricey lenses, even though the A6k series are good, compact bodies with a lot of features. it's even worse if you buy a Sony A-mount camera, except that Sigma does make a 2.8 standard zoom in that mount. i would say you get what you pay for, but a better aphorism would be read the fine print and research carefully, before buying.</p>

<p>either lens will likely be fine. the question is whether you will need to zoom in past 35mm; if so, i would take the 24-70. if you will mostly be taking wide shots and need wider than 24mm, take the 17-35. as others have suggested, don't put people at the edges at 17-18mm if you can help it. 20mm is generally as wide as i like to go for people shots. comparing the two lenses, the weaknesses are full frame corners with the 17-35 and distortion at 24mm with the 24-70. if you center your subjects and avoid shots which emphasize the subpar aspects of the lens, you should be ok. i think the recommended lens list assumes optical perfection and landscape use. in the center of the frame, either lens should be a good performer. i prefer to shoot the 24-70 at f/4, but i wouldnt say it's terrible wide open. </p>

<p>i think you have to adjust your expectations accordingly with superzooms. and focus breathing is something you may encounter with a lot of lenses; it blows that my 70-200 II does it at a range where i dont want it to. but since that's not something i can fix, i just work around it. </p>

<p>i dont think the Fuji lenses are necessarily cost-prohibitive; they just announced a 23/2 for $500 USD. but my point was that you have specific interest in the Voigtlanders. Those will play better on a Sony body, even though there may be other UI/aesthetic considerations which come into play. An A7II sounds like a very acceptable choice; you get the in-body stabilization and its a 2nd-gen body. Good luck on your choice. </p>

<p>for MF legacy lens use with a specific brand, the sonys are really your best bet. i wouldnt consider another olympus, partially because of the awkwardness of the m4/3 crop factor with wide angle you've already encountered. the fuji is an excellent body, but they tend to work better with their own native lenses, many of which are excellent, though with a different character than voigtlander or zeiss. also fuji has a different color array from the sensor, so the body/lenses are really designed to work together. the zeiss touitts arent really preferred over the fuji lenses by fuji users and are always going on sale. </p>

<p>not surew whether the OP will return to this thread, but there are so many good SP options these days. if we are talking nikon full frame it appears the OP already has a d700, which is a bargain body if you already have legacy lenses. you could easily spend more on a new body and get questionable increase in capability, depending. if there arent specific lens requirements for Nikon FF, i would definitely peruse what else is out there now, including compacts and APS-C. i dont necessarily belive there is any inherent advantage for SP in using an 810 over a 3200, depending on approach and post techniques. in fact, a lot of folks have traded down from studio cameras for more casual snap opportunities. YMMV. </p>