Choosing with part of the equipment to complete?

[mark_kesper]

First, why posting here since it's a equipment related question? Well, because some beginner may get into

similar situation. Not everyone starts from scratch buying into one system.

So if it's the wrong section, please feel free to move it to a appropriate part of the forum.

---

So, strictly speaking I'm not a beginner. But have a disarray of equipment systems. Have been buying them to

try out which I like most.

Sony (A700) due to starting out with Minolta long ago. Kit lenses 18-55 & 70-300, & hvl58 flash.

Nikon (D2Xs, F5 and V1) due to using that system mostly and most "pro" like. 14, 24 & 50. 35-70 2.8. Sb-400

small flash. All heavy.

Fuji (just a X-E1), bought a good kit as a present for a friend, ended up with a extra body, used with Nikon glass

via adapter. Wonderful but oh so slow.

But, what do I do now? I don't have any complete "big" system that would work all-around, only more

specialized so to speak. By complete I mean including flash. And now that it's summer having a camera is nice.

What would you recommend, and best way to keep costs down?

I've come to 3 choices.

Sony: Buy a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 (cheap) or Sony 16-50 2.8 and then I have all round general kit.

Nikon: Buy a SB-800/500 and a DX 35/FX 28. Not cheapest route but good quality and I know CLS well. Or 18-

70. However in terms of weight this is heavy

Fuji: get the 16-50 and stick-to it. Maybe a flash later ($200 in EU).

 

What do you think?

[Rick Helmke]

<p>Buy Nikon and don't look back. Just one opinion from a 30+year Nikon guy.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I have neither Nikon nor Sony so I can't really comment on them. - I assume the Nikon has a tad of an AF edge over the Sony?<br>

I have an X-E1 the 2 consumer zooms and the 200 euro flash. The latter seems a big mistake from hindsight. With a slow zoom the Fuji AF is hopelessly challenged indoors and VF lag turns cruel too. - I'm somewhat confident I could run circles around the Fuji with old manual film beaters like K1000 / MX.<br>

The 16-50 is light and performs nicely but while local dealers seem able to pave their yards with used kit zooms of other brands, Fuji's simply don't seem to exist. That lens is 400(!)Euro on its own. The X-A1 + 2 zooms kit was 500 Euro last year, when I bought it on a lark. Really weird pricing policy. The mentioned deal seems over but you still save 150 Euro in case you are willing to cope with an additional X-a2 compared to buying the just 2 zooms on their own.<br>

I fear one has to sink a serious amount of money in Fuji to maybe become happy or continue cursing the AF - Who knows? - On a budged I'd suggest to see the Fuji as a half dead end and treat it as your sluggish landscape camera with whatever you can adapt on it. If you really have to use flash fire something old in manual or auto mode. - Fuji TTL is unlikely to safe your day since its too hard to get something quickly enough into focus.<br>

IDK if you have Minolta AF heritagge primes - If so I'd skip the fast zoom for the Sony. - Stopped down kit-zooms tend to produce sufficient IQ by daylight. So why walk a heavy f2.8, especially if the camera provides Anti Shake.<br>

So in the end I agree with Rick: ponder buying Nikon. -Aren't there affordable 3rd party flashes for Nikon yet? - I'm not sure about the need for 28mm. - My FF system is (15) 21 35 (50) 90 (135). ()s likely to stay at home - My heritage DSLRs 12-24 / 18 -50 / (35 - 80) & (14) 24 50 135. <br />I'd try to get hold of a used more compact body, if you are concerned about weight. Backup seems always nice to have, but I guess your Fuji plays that role in the Nikon bag.<br>

I honestly don't know if one really needs a big TTL flash with modern digital cameras. - So far I got by with my old Metz 60 CT4 in auto mode when my small TTL flashes didn't seem sufficient. - Histogram chimping a test shot wasn't that hard.<br>

Considering that you have 3 crop bodies of similar pixel count: Wouldn't it make sense to shoot what you have and save your pennies for a big upgrade once something finally fell apart?<br>

BTW: I see nothing wrong with shooting mixed systems where it makes sense. - Do you really need a big flash on Nikon when you cover the long end with the Sony on your other shoulder?</p>

[mark_kesper]

<p>@Rick Helmke: Thanks for the answer, even thought it's a short an concise one. Thanks for reading a long post. :)<br>

@Jochen Schrey:<br>

Thanks for the answer.<br>

About the Fuji: Well I read somewhere that Fujis own flashes were a bit so/so. However I have read on various blogs some pretty good opinions about the Nissin i40, which also seems to be more compact and still being powerful.<br>

You are right abuot the pricing on Fuji equipment. It's kind of strange. However I thought if I'll buy a 16-50 kit lens - that receives fairly good reviews, it would be a used one, about 100-120 Euro. It's best parameter is that it goes to effective 24 mm and is light. Plus ppl are not as sceptical to the Fuji rangefinderstyled cameras (goes to the V1 as well) compared to the big DSL systems.<br>

<em>I'm not doing anything exceptionally strange or so in photography, it's just a one who has done some press photo and social photography you quickly discover that equipment choices also depend on whom you're gonna picture. Many are afraid of cameras - that's when discreet and dimunuitive equipment is really good. </em><br>

Otherwise Fuji is expensive indeed.<br>

Sony/Minolta: Well, I agree about the weight. I wouldn't like to have anything really heavy as a walkaround, general purpose lens since the A700 is light, but together with the HVL58-AM flash it gets heavy. And yes, daylight during summer is usually sufficient to stop down. f/4.5-6.3 is very usual.<br>

The Sigma 17-70 would cost me ca 150 euro (used). I'm going to go test it and compare it with the Sony 16-50 2.8.<br>

Focuswise the Sony A700 is OK. It's not as fast as the D2Xs of course, but it's very very exact in the center (only one dual cross sensor).<br>

And then we get to the Nikon. Well, the main problem or blessing there are the AF/-D lenses I have. If I would have AF-S Lenses I'd buy a 3200/5100 and keep it light and high resolution. I must admit however I like the AF-D lenses. So I have been thinking about a D300(s). Not sure how such a camera would fare today.<br>

A DX 35 mm lens or a 28 AF-D 2.0 lens isn't what much. However a D300 is 300 euros or so. <br>

Flash for Nikon: Well in most cases the small SB-400 is good. However it's not controllable and one can't tilt it sideways. So that the whole reason for it. Flash is more important the darker part of the year otherwise.</p>

<p>I am otherwise looking at upgrading later on to either Nikon 1 V3 or Samsung NX1 and changing systems altogether. However that's another story and not really affordable atm.<br>

I do usually carry dual systems. Exactly as you described it I shot at a wedding. The Nikon D2xs with fast primes and the Sony with the 70-300 and flash. Worked good. Usually the 1 system is more or less always with me, and on the long end I use it primarily since the OS is really good. I wouldn't however recommend buying the V1 since it has it's annoying quirks (Nikon..... firmware updates please?)</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Which of these three systems do you like to use most? When you hold it in your hands, out shooting, at home looking at results: which ticks the boxes most for you? In my view, you have three systems that all three have pretty complete line-ups unless you have very specific wishes (and one cannot do film), so their competencies aren't the issue. It's about making a choice, and going with it. Choose the one you like most as that is likely to be the one to make you hapyp.<br>

Given that you indicate revisiting the question down the road again (upgrading Nikon 1/move to Samsung), I'd keep the eye on the ball. Stop spending money until you define for yourself which system is going to be it, and then start selling off the others and build yourself a good solid set of that one system that works for you. Else, it always remains a chain of compromises, a bit here, a bit there, a bit of everything but nothing really stand-out. I prefer wasting my money on getting the best lenses in my budget, rather than spreading it out over a number of good, but not exceptional, lenses.</p>

<p>I can tell you which system I prefer, but that's got really nothing to do with it. It has to be what you like using, and only you can answer that one really.</p>

[mark_kesper]

<p>@Wouter Willemse:<br>

You have a point. I am a Minolta/Sony Fanboy. But have use mostly Nikon more seriously, how strange that might sound. Noticed that long ago (D70 + 18-70 + SB-800) that when I actually read how the CLS system, Nikon AF-system and Flash actually works, I learned alot and the pictures got better - i.e it got easier to convey what I wanted the pictures to show. Before that I used both analog and digital canons from the editorial stash.<br>

I like the sony for it's "minoltaness" and lightness (Dynax 4 for those who remember where light and pretty fast)<br>

I like the big Nikon for it's sheer power and speed and reliability. And spread of focus points in the viewfinder. <br>

As someone who has shot alot of analog film on Fuji film Press and Supera, I do like the Fuji color rendering. But find the cameras abit slow in handling. <br>

The V1 system stays as backup due to it's unobtrusiveness and speed. The Nikon 1 system isn't really mature yet, even though the V3 seems like a great step forward.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Wouter put it very succinctly. Which system do you use most, and does it fit your future needs? I would add, how is equipment evolving that may affect your decisions in the future.</p>

<p>DSLRs will remain dominant for the foreseeable future. They tend to be more responsive than mirrorless cameras and have a longer battery life before recharging (batteries are larger and don't have the demand of an electronic viewfinder). Both Nikon and Canon have a wide variety of lenses and accessories, including flash, at all price levels, with backward and forward compatibility. We find that while bodies become obsolete (if not disfunctional), lenses are practically forever. I have two Nikon lenses, a 17-35/2.8 and 28-70/2.8, which I purchased for film cameras, yet have survived over 12 years through a succession of digital bodies. The downside - the equipment is bulky and heavy. Lenses are large because they must be designed to clear a moving mirror. My working backpack weighs between 30 and 35 lbs, and is strictly "overhead compartment" sized. The Sony A77 is a DSLR, only using a fixed semi-transparent mirror rather than a mechanical one.</p>

<p>Mirrorless cameras are evolving quickly, and pose a serious threat to the popularity of DSLRs. The bodies are much smaller than DSLRs with similar capabilities, as are lenses designed for short back focus, much like rangefinders of the 60's and before. The image quality on many surpasses anything DSLRs can offer, but lens system development is lagging Canon and Nikon. That too is changing. Zeiss has adopted the Sony A7 as the platform of choice, much as they did for Nikon and Canon 15 years ago. While Nikon never permitted Zeiss to produce AF lenses, Sony encourages it. With growing pixel counts in sensors, zoom lenses are being overtaken in popularity by prime lenses, for two reasons. With so many megapixels at your disposal, you can crop in post, rather than in the viewfinder. Secondly, prime lenses can be made smaller, faster, and with much higher image quality than zoom lenses. I would not feel under-equipped in the field with a Sony A7 and three lenses - 28/35, 50 and 85/90. Throw in a ubiquitous 70-200/4 zoom and a second body, and we're talking about an 18 lb kit for work or pleasure.</p>

<p>Fuji has an excellent array of X-mount lenses for the OP's Fuji EX1, and more advanced bodies, as good as anything for Sony, Nikon or Canon. Fujinon is a lens maker and designer of the highest caliber, and makes lenses under contract for German companies as well. Since Fuji cameras have an APS-C sensor, wide angle lenses must have a shorter focal length than for a full-framed camera, hence much larger and more complex than necessary in order to provide back focus length and more tele-centric optics.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Nikon and Canon have by far the most extensive camera/lens systems, so if it's a system you're after, stick with Nikon.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Mark, I can see the distinct advantages as you put them; I would say that the specific Nikons you have do tend to underline the weight issue a bit more than some other Nikon cameras might, though ;) The F5, nice as it is, is a terribly heavy brick, the D2x same story. <br>

A camera as the D7000 (which can now be found for fairly moderate sums of money) or better the D7100 could well fix the worst problem of your Nikon line-up, while keeping what's good. Put a F80 alongside instead of the F5, and you lost a lot of weight without loosing a lot of competence. And you'd be with one of the more complete systems there is.</p>

<p>My biggest "concern" with Sony is the situation around the A-mount bodies: it really isn't clear what they want to do there. The focus seems firmly on the E-mount (A7 etc.), but that's probably not that "Minolta heritage" you're looking for - it is a completely different system. At this point, I wouldn't make a choice for the A-mount system as its future doesn't seem to be very rosy, nor long. But grabbing an older Dynax camera from eBay and use it with some classic great lenses and the occassional bit of film, for fun.... Why not? But as a secondary hobby system, with just a single lens, or two, for those times you want to scratch that itch. At least, that's what would make most sense to me.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I would keep the Fuji and stick to it. I too doubt the longevity of the Sony A system. You will always be OK with Nikon and Canon - plenty of secondhand lenses available and at all levels of pricing and you can do anything with them. But the Fuji will be lighter and the 16-50 is a good lens - simple.</p>

[mark_kesper]

<p>Thanks the responses.<br>

Was at the store testing the Sony DT 16-50 F/2.8 SSM lens and the Sigma 17-70 F/2.8-4 HSM C DC lens. <br>

Prices: Sony: 420 Euro. Sigma 156 Euro. <br>

Well...<br>

Sony: Heavy, really fast, quiet, VERY quick follow focus reaction (updating focus while you pan and zoon) together with the Sony A700 eye-start sensor. Impressive. A bit heavy zoom control. Nice bokeh, quite uniform.<br>

Sigma: Not as heavy, but not far behind. Really quick follow focus reaction, not far off, but still noticeably from the Sony lens. Impressive reach and still very clear in the viewfinder. Good bokeh, not as uniform as the Sony but well, still better than my Nikon 24 mm F/2.8 AF-D in many situations. <br>

Both lenses seems clear. Shot indoor just to check. <br>

The camera together with Flash and either of the lenses is fairly heavy. So going for a better zoom kit might be OK as a One short-medium distance camera package. <br>

They also have the Sony SAL 50 F/1.8 (70 euros) and 85 F/2.8(140 euros) for sale, but that would leave me with the same problem as on the Nikon side: Nothing in wideangle or normal. (3 light cheap lenses would be OK). </p>

<p> </p>

[mark_kesper]

<p>@Wouter Willemse, Jochen Schrey & Edward Ingold and also Robin Smith. <br /> To answer the question about which camera I like to use most. Well it depends, but usually it's the big and small Nikons. I really like along time ago to use my Minolta Dynax 4 before I switched to digital and got a Nikon D70/18-70/SB-800 flash. With that I generated most of the images I have. Essentially since I learned it good. I have not used the Sony A700 alot due to uing my old Minolta lenses on it wasn't really a good idea. <br />So I am looking at having at least one complete package. The Sony might be worth as a test to fit that bill since I have a flash as well. However I'm not against getting a 18-70 again and sticking it on the D2Xs together with a SB-800 flash - same price. But the weight of that keeps putting me off. And somehow I doubt that the 18-70 is really good in terms of resolution and focus speed. But maybe someone has tested that.<br /> Overall, you have a point about saving the rest for a big upgrade later on, and that's what I intend to do (Wouter & Jochen)<br />A D7100 or D300(s) might be a alternative i I continue with Nikon.<br /> Btw, I Nikon will repair my 1 system 10-30, it seems it got the lens error that some of them get over time. As I understand it is covered by the warranty.<br /> I'm not against Fuji, but as said here, it's a bit more expensive system to buy in into and while I really like the rendering output, it wouldn't make economical sense for me to invest in it now. <br />For the actual money now, the Sigma lens I tested is worth a test compared to the Sony SSM 16-50, which is too expensive - especially considering the future for the A-mount. The only real difference would be that it's weather sealed (so far).<br /> Pairing the big D2Xs with a 18-70 would be nice, but I'm not sure about the result, might be slow. And the total system weight with that and flash would be not your typical "walkaround" choice. (around 2.5 kg?) The D70 equivalent was a I remember around 1.7 kg which is well still heavy after 3-6 hours. :)<br>

*EDIT* Just for interest sake I calculated approximatelyhow much the Sony system with the Sigma would weight.<br>

Approximate:<br>

1. Big Nikon: D2Xs + 18-70/3.5-4.5 + SB-800 = ca 2.5 kg<br>

2. Sony A700 + Sigma 17-70 + HVL58-AM with batteries (ca 200 grammes) = ca 1.8 kg<br>

3. Fuji* X-E1 + 16-50 + Nissin i40 with batteries (202 + 200 grammes) = ca 1 kg. <br>

Well, Fuji wins here obivously. *Bad t's a to expensive choice atm.</p>

[mark_kesper]

<p>In conclusion I bought the Sigma 17-70 for Sony.<br>

Howeever it turned out to be the previous Sigma 17-70 non C HSM MACRO. But the price was OK so I'm trying it out. Trying to see if I have some issues with it. Together with the big flash it seems to work well. Of course in twilight it's has problems finding focus fast, but that's unusual.</p>