Which system in 2016?

<p>Don't get me wrong I enjoy new toys the same as everyone else...in some ways it inspires me to get out there and press the magic button. But Im not under the delusion that I think this new cam is going to make be a better photographer.</p>

<p>It is that something else.<br>

</p>

<p>Not a subject I need to debate at length, but it is worthwhile questioning certain misconceptions. I agree with Steven on the cropping point. If Allen can severely (not just moderately....) crop a 16MP file and still get a quality A3 (11.6 x 16.5 inches) print, fair enough if it pleases him; quality is not a black and white value but something that changes according to the requirements of the viewer, the nature of the phtographed subject, the need for subtle reproduction of textures and fine details, and how far back one is when observing a print. People who purchase cameras as toys certainly exist, like in many areas of human activity, but requiring a better instrument can be a need of a photographer, neurosurgeon or tennis player.</p>

<p>Talking about the limits of the device is not something that means photographic approach and imagination are not also extremely important. Apples and oranges. When we were using 35mm film, a 12 x 16 print (12X enlargement) from a 100 ISO film negative looked not too bad, notwithstanding the very small negative size. But when it was put up against a moderately large film size (say, 5 x 7 inch) view camera print of the same subject (a little more than 2X magnification), the latter blew the 35mm print out of the water. This was even more so as the print size got larger, say 25 inches x 35 inches (25X for the smaller camer, 5X for the LF). The apparent resolution is not the only thing, it is how the tonality and the fine details reproduce when one goes beyond the limits of the device. Not always well.</p>

<p>Remember the fantastic quality of a 2 MP camera that replaced the 1 MP camera? Or the 6 MP camera (the limit of one of my current P&S cameras purchased in the mid 2000s and good enough for some less critical subject matter) that was once touted as having enough quality fior the most demanding needs. There will always be those who say that 10 MP or 1000 ISO are plenty for quality results, without considering the more global photographic needs (very large print sizes, freedom to crop substantially, need for higher ISO for low light photgraphy, better reduction of noise and prevention of picture blurring when a tripod is not possible).</p>

<p>A camera, to my mind, should be there at all times, just like your eyes...</p>

 

<p>Gup, I hope your back improves shortly. I almost wrote mine off 5 or 6 years ago, but lo and behold, even tired old vertebrae can improve after a bit of time and mild to medium exercise. Even if I were 30 again I would prefer even then a lighter and more unobstrusive camera and lens kit, packed in an army surplus or other unnoticeable bag, and allowing lesshassle and more freedom of movement, possibility of bicycling around, and so on.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>crop a 16MP file and still get a quality A3 (11.6 x 16.5 inches) print, fair enough if it pleases him; quality is not a black and white value but something that changes according to the requirements of the viewer, the nature of the phtographed subject, the need for subtle reproduction of textures and fine details, and how far back one is when observing a print. People who purchase cameras as toys certainly exist, like in many areas of human activity, but requiring a better instrument can be a need of a photographer, neurosurgeon or tennis player. Arthur.</p>

<p>As I have already pointed out Arthur there is endless examples of low res cameras being able to produce prints which are not discernible from high res cameras...have I got to go to the boring laborious task of linking you to examples that you are already aware of?</p>

<p>" the need for subtle reproduction of textures and fine details" Arthur.</p>

<p>Really, I would doubt anyone would see the subtle reproduction of textures and fine details on a normal size print....again this has been proved time and time again with experienced photographers looking at the prints.</p>

<p>a better instrument can be a need of a photographer, neurosurgeon or tennis playe"r. Arthur.</p>

<p>The upgrades in the photographic world are minor compared to the above...its all about the marketing...think about all those who have walked before us.</p>

<p>Photography has always been about Art very little else... for those who matter in our Art.</p>

<p>Arthur, they look at photograph....that's all they look at....not what camera and how many pixels it has.</p>

<p>But you know that. Sort of a fun thing to hype about gear that I understand.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree wholeheartedly with Arthur. With megapixels it's 'the more, the merrier'. In motorcycle racing we say, 'there's no replacement for displacement'. <br>

I enjoy the ability to crop right down sometimes in place of carrying longer lenses. I'm looking forward to 100+ meg sensors. Here's one now...</p><div></div>

<p>"I enjoy the ability to crop right down sometimes in place of carrying longer lenses. I'm looking forward to 100+ meg sensors. Here's one now"...</p>

<p>Jeeze, how much do you want to crop?</p>

<p>Why not stay at home and let a drone do it all for you...perhaps a automated drone so you do not have to think....that would cool for you. My drone photos using my hi tech cam whilst I was in bed with a friend.</p>

<p>Some nice gear fondle...cool or what.</p>

<p>Sort of think, maybe Im wrong, you should get the photo... mostly right in the first place.</p>

<p>Perhaps 500 meg might possibly do it. Or, perhaps 1000meg....hey. why not. Who cares I've got a new cam and I love it...at least for a few of weeks.</p>

<p>Thanks for the fun...God bless all, and goodnight.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>The fun was of your making, Allen. I for one have no need to convince you of what I think. I have no trouble respecting the outlook of other photographers, unless it becomes like this one, involving childish maintenance of position and ignoring other's points. You can do better than that.</p>

<p>" involving childish maintenance of position and ignoring other's points. You can do better than that"</p>

<p>Emotional response, Arthur. You have not answered or responded to anything....just a angst personnel attack.... a mob pleaser response. I would have expected more of you...but maybe not.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>" I have no trouble respecting the outlook of other photographers "Arthur.</p>

<p>Who agree with me.Arthur.</p>

<p>"involving childish maintenance of position "Arthur.</p>

<p>Grow up Arthur you can do better that school boy insults.</p>

<p>Try answering the response to your posts.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>" Really, I would doubt anyone would see the subtle reproduction of textures and fine details on a normal size print....again this has been proved time and time again with experienced photographers looking at the print'".</p>

<p>Allen,</p>

<p>Your interest is in street photography and the human condition. I can respect that, but the technical demands are subordinate to the sense of timing and irony. If one's interest is in scenery and architecture, there is a greater need for detail. What better way to start than with more pixels, followed up by lenses up to the challenge of more pixels. You owe it to others to respect their needs and desires. Nobody likes to look at landscapes where the horizon is tilted, but that seems to be acceptable in street photography.</p>

<p>I disagree that this detail is lost in smaller prints. Some is lost, of course, but downsampling involves decisions which pixels to keep, which to combine and which to lose. Quite often the decision turns to favor retention of detail. (That's why JPEG files with a lot of detail are significantly larger than others.) Situations which come to mind include visible cobwebs, guitar strings and other structures which can be seen in prints or web sites even when they are theoretically smaller than one pixel width in the reduced image.</p>

<p>On the other hand, even the finest lens and best sensor can be defeated by sloppy technique. Camera shake is unavoidable, amounting on the average to about 2 MOA/second. Another is inaccurate focusing. What might be acceptable in a 12 MP camera are clearly visible at 42 MP. It takes a lot of care to take full advantage of the A7Rii. You might not need to take that care each time, depending on the subject, but the lack thereof obscures the differences.</p>

<p>The A7ii and A7Rii are ideally suited to deal with both problem I mentioned. Camera shake is greatly reduced by in-body image stabilization (IBIS), which works with ANY lens, not just lenses designed for the Sony. The other is focus, which is assisted by peaking and/or magnification, which again work with ANY lens (with a button push or two).</p>

<p>Then there is Moire - the nemesis of cameras without an anti-aliasing filter. The high resolution of the A7Rii produces much less Moire in most subjects than a camera with less resolution. Even at PNET resolution, Moire is visible in the corrugated steel storage bins by the Hasselblad, but not in the Sony image. In fact, there is no noticeable Moire in the magnified original.</p>

<p>Hasseblad CFV16 (16 MP)<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18226837-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="600" /></p>

<p>Sony A7Rii + Batis 85/1.8 @ f/5.6<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18121292-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I dislike the unavoidable fact that the Sony sensor is always visible when changing lenses (possibility of sensor contamination), but that is always a thing to take care with (small bulb blower), live view mechanism or not.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You needn't worry. I have not been nearly as subject to dust contamination with the Sony as with my Nikon D3. The sensor is treated to resist dust. Each time you turn the power on, the sensor is given a shake to dislodge dust. You also have a cleaning cycle, available in the menu, which runs for half a second or so. Once in a while I need to remove a stubborn piece of lint. It comes off easily with a blower. I've only needed a wet cleaning twice, probably from oil from the shutter mechanism, or some airborne droplet. Hidden near the blue rain cover in the photo of my backpack, you will see the red tip of a bottle of Eclipse Fluid (methanol). In the cover there are a few PEC pads and sensor swabs in a plastic Zip-Loc bag. A Giottos Rocket blower is stored in the erstwhile computer pocket in the cover. Suspenders and a belt, you know ;)<br>

<br>

The A7 easily passes the "blank sky at f/22" trick, which my D3 seldom does, even after cleaning. There's no mirror to blow dust around.<br>

<br>

The Rocket Blower has to be quite close to the sensor (but not touching) to remove some stubborn pieces of lint. Blow off the backside of your lenses too. More dust comes from lenses than the wind.</p>

<p>a7 series sensors including the a7RII.... I am more comfortable in changing lens on my Sony cameras than my Nikon cameras. My reason: the sony sensor is more accessible making it easier to view dust and to remove it. And in my experience, the sony sensor is no more or less likely to pick up dust than my Nikon sensors. I also use the new newer Visible Dust magnifier and rocket blower.<br>

Over the past 15 years, my path for sensor cleaning tells me that very very rarely does the in camera shake approach helps, but maybe I am not doing it right. I use the f22 criteria so even the smallest of particles will show up. 2-3 in the central 3/4 of the sensor is sufficient to get me to clean the sensor. The path: Find dust-->clean-->2 shots to verify-->in camera shake clean-->2 shots to verify-->repeat until clean.<br>

Gup....I wish you wonderful travels and keep us updated on your story. And let us know what you finally decided to do and then what your final experience was. For many years I have traveled for personal enjoyment and family with a NEX 5 (18-200mm, f3.5-6.3) and my D800's together. At the end of those trips, I have extracted metrics on how the different bodies were used and what percentage of pictures were deemed 'keepable' in the end. The results were always a bit of a surprise. </p>

 

<p>My previous examples on Moire fall short of illustrating the problem with high resolution digital images. The following examples of the same subject are enlarged so that 1 px = 1 px, 600x600. For a more objective comparison, the 42 MP image is presented as a portion of the original, and the original downsampled to the same resolution (4080 px) of the Hasselblad image. Since the A7Rii does not have an AA filter, it has been accused of causing Moire. I have not found that to be the case in practical applications.</p>

<p>Moire is a problem when patterns in the subject approach the pixel spacing in the sensor, AND the lens resolves details at that level or better. The Hasselblad CF100 and Batis 85/1.8 qualify in that regard, as well as the Loxia 50/2. I haven't found Moire to be a problem with the Sony/Zeiss 16-35/4, but I haven't used it on a subject likely to cause Moire. I used a tripod for these shots. As good as IBIS is, there seems to be enough camera shake (some induced by IBIS) to eliminate Moire in hand-held shots. Moire sometimes makes the resolution seem better than it is, due to aliasing. This is clearly exhibited in the Hasselblad image. One giveaway is the odd geometric pattern aliasing produces.</p>

<p>I didn't Photoshop out the utility pole. It disappeared some time betweeo 2009 (Hassie) and 2015 (Sony).</p>

<p>Hasselblad + 16 MP Back (4080x4080) + CF100/3.5<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18226976-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="600" /></p>

<p>A7Rii (42 MP) + Batis 85/1.8 - 7920 px downsampled to 4080<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18226974-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="600" /></p>

<p>A7Rii at full resolution<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18226975-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="600" /></p>

<p>Interesting thread - I recently decided to get a Fuji system as an alternative to carrying a Canon system for general photography, precisely b/c i found that carrying even a 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 around all day was too much work. </p>

<p>So I ended up with a Fuji XT1, 16/1.4, 23/1.4 and a 35/1.4. </p>

<p>I opted for Fuji b/c of the way it is set up - as a camera, not an electronic box. I like having all the controls at my fingers, instead of looking at the menu, and while i havent quite acquired the same swift reflexes with the Fuji as I do with the Canon, i am a lot closer than with other cameras.This isnt my first tryst with MLCs - I had a Panasonic GF1 when it first came out. Gave it away b/c it was about as ergonomic as dried dog-poop. The camera was an impediment to seeing photos.</p>

<p>And honestly, I see the same issue with the Sonys (well, that and the fact that a comparable Sony FF MLC kit isnt appreciably lighter than a DSLR kit). I am sure they are technically great - but ergonomically, they are lacking. And all the resolution and measurements and specs in the world are meaningless if you end up fighting the camera when you are taking prints. And yes, i realize that someone else may find the Sony to not be as much of an ergonomic disaster as me - if so, have at it.<br /><br /><br>

Re resolution - no one is arguing that more resolution is better, helps with cropping, etc. etc. But I'll also submit to you that no otherwise-great photograph has ever failed b/c of a lack of resolution in the details. The aesthetic elements of a photograph are what matter - every single time. Sure, all else being equal, more megapickles are always nice to have. But all else is rarely equal. Give me a camera that fits my shooting style and gets out of the way, and i have a tool that actively helps my photography - the less time i spend fumbling with the camera, the more time i can spend on my subject.</p>

<p>I actually had no idea how many megapixels the XT1 had when i bought it. I have an X100 (the original) and i dont know how many megapixels it has either. I dont care. And i am not a tech-hating Luddite, btw - I just think that at this stage of technology, megapixels are more or less irrelevant. </p>

<p>So all of this is a long-winded way of repeating that old wisdom - go handle the cameras and pick the one that feels best in your hands (that's also what helped me pick the XT1 over the XT10 and the EM-Ds). </p>

 

<p>Fumbling is inversely proportional to practice ;) Hardly anybody like the Canon menu, and the Nikon menu is only slightly less obtuse.</p>

<p>My M9 has a dedicated shutter speed wheel which also displays in the viewfinder Apertures are strictly manual. Which is better - take the camera away from your eye and set the speed, or use a thumbwheel and read the results in the finder? Aperture settings are either manual or remote. The same arguments apply.</p>

<p>I don't mind the Nikon menus. In fact, I like them a lot. I don't even mind the much-maligned Olympus menus.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I'm looking forward to 100+ meg sensors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the idea that there is only upside from expanding sensor resolution exponentially is a fallacy. already with sensors larger than 24mp, there are issues with shutter shock, diffraction, and some older lenses' flaws being magnified. along with massive file sizes and sometimes buffer-clearing issues and things like frame rate. that's not to say that huge sensors arent appropriate in some applications, but they are certainly not necessary in all applications. furthermore, to address all the issues that come up with larger sensors, you need additional R&D to identify and mitigate these issues within the body itself, as well as things like designing new lenses expressly for large-sensor bodies. at the user end of things, big sensors might require fulltime tripod use, more careful composition, premium lenses, and larger dedicated file storage capacity. what makes the trend toward larger sensors interesting is that it counters the other trend, of photos being taken not for print usage, but for web display at typically small sizes which dont require massive resolution. we've definitely seen this in media, where blog sites have proliferated as print publications have downsized photo staff. typically for a blog post photo, one has to downsize file sizes, which makes even 12mp sensor output overkill for the application. </p>

<p>Whatever camera you buy, you have to get used to the menu on it..and, of course, to like it as well and get to know it's quirks.<br>

I must admit I find a lot of chat about not being able to get a grip on a cameras menu system a bit twee; I mean, what are we looking at here..aperture, shutter speed and ISO. That's all to make a start. That's all the big boys ever needed. All the other guff comes later on. If you like the camera, buy it or save up if you want to waste your money on a Leica; I've owned 3 over the years and thought they were awful; give me my old F and F2 cameras and my Sony Nex 6 and 7 and I'm a happy bunny; awkward menus and all, to me they are perfect.</p>