Which system in 2016?

eric_arnold · May 4, 2016

Coincidentally, Thom Hogan addresses the issue of mirrorless kits for travel in his <a href="http://www.sansmirror.com/articles/three-small-mirrorless.html">latest blog post</a>. A lot of good observations there. His conclusion was that Fuji XT10, Sony A6300, and Olympus E-M10 offer the best combination of versatility, flexibility, and performance, according to his listed criteria.

As he notes,

A Nikon D5 DSLR with the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 lens is an impressive beast. Big, heavy. But in tight spaces its size becomes a detriment, as in a crowd you can swing the camera and hit other people, or they’ll poke into the lens, too.

</blockquote>

The same would be true of a Sony full-frame mirrorless body with the 24-70/2.8, or a Leica SL with their 24-90. Both systems would be capable of great IQ, of course, but their size/bulk makes them unwieldy for street photography in crowded public spaces and/or areas where you dont want to call attention to yourself and your expen$ive gear. In fact, the benefits of an SL+24-90 combo over, say, a Fuji XE2 with a 18-55 are debateable in a travel scenario. Both lenses are 2.8-4, but the Leica set-up is beastly and potentially awkward; you might potentially get "better" photos, but does that matter if you shoot less and are less inclined to lug the gear because of size/weight/bulk? And while the Leica would offer better low-light performance, you could easily get those stops back by adding a Fuji 1.4 lens to the kit.

Hogan also notes:

Each of you will have your own level of tolerance to size and weight, so substitute an X-Pro2 or an E-M1 or an A7rII if you want. But in my experience, almost everyone overestimates how much gear they’ll really tolerate carrying around for long periods of time, and by the end of trips a lot of gear is being left behind in the hotel room.

</blockquote>

The implication of that is fairly clear: carry around a fully-loaded 20-lb. pack if you must, but it may prove to be overkill. Also, the wisdom of this approach might be questionable, depending on how you travel. If you're going from place to place, leaving gear in the hotel room may not be possible, or not advisable due to security concerns. Also, if you are taking train or bus trips in-between rest stops, or island-hopping and the like, having the kitchen sink with you in crowded spaces with little individual luggage room may not be the best option. if you really need light stands while on vacation, you're probably not actually on vacation.

I don't necessarily agree with all of Hogan's choices--i'd probably pick different lenses for the Fuji kit--but i do think he lays out a rational argument for his choices, without getting distracted by non-essential or extraneous minutiae. He also makes a critical distinction between a dedicated photo trip and a trip which might include photography. Obviously, if you are going on safari with the sole purpose of photographing wildlife, your kit would be very different from what you might take for a casual sightseeing excursion.

eric_arnold · May 4, 2016

High image quality at 1000 ISO and more is now. How often does one need f2.8 on a zoom?

</blockquote>

for low-light photography, ISOs can easily veer up to 3200 or 6400. That used to mean full-frame territory; However the latest APS-C bodies can mostly handle that, and some of the 1" sensor cameras are as good as DSLRs of 7-8 years ago, i.e. usable ISO 1600. Whether one needs 2.8 for travel photography is pretty subjective, especially if you also have fast prime options. if you are mainly shooting in good light, f/4 or even 5.6 should be workable. (However, this can be tricky, since shooting urban cities, you might encounter shadows even at high noon.) Since we are talking about mirrorless cameras and travel, i'll posit that the ethos of mirrorless shouldnt be about exactly replicating a DSLR system, but providing a lighter/smaller alternative with most of the same functionality, and hopefully some added benefits. As stated earlier, i can fit 2 bodies and 4-5 lenses into a small waistbag kit weighing less than 5 lbs. total. That might not give me the exact same functionality as a professional working kit, but that kit does maybe 80% of what a much heavier and larger kit can do.

Ed_Ingold · May 5, 2016

I'm taking a lot of heat for that "20 pound" camera bag. In reality, it is a convenient way to keep all of the equipment I need on a regular basis in one place, something I can grab and go without serious planning. There's always the option of carrying less, but I'm careful to put things away in the backpack afterwards. I keep specialized gear, for example macro and lighting equipment, separate, only carried when absolutely needed.

The 24-70/2.8 is a brick, no debate there. An extra stop was not a deciding feature, more a negative with regard to size and weight. However it lives up to Sony's promise, and proves to be as sharp and free of CA as any of the prime lenses in its range, with excellent bokeh. It may be the only lens I need in national parks and gardens from the Everglades to the Cascades. Walking about in cities or for social events, a small, discrete lens like a Loxia 35/2 or (light but less discrete) Batis 25/2 is often all I carry. If you already have them, Nikon primes work well in aperture priority, and are only a little smaller than the Batis.

Most of us remember what we use on jobs and vacations, and more important, what we carried and never used. If you want to get analytical, Adobe Lightroom will display how many times a particular lens, focal length or other feature (e.g., ISO) was used in a set of images. You can look at the entire catalog, or just a selected set.

Most museums in the U.S. and abroad don't allow large camera bags. If one lens won't due, there are belt pouches and fanny packs which often pass muster. If you get one without stiff partitions, it will fold flat when not in use.

Ed_Ingold · May 5, 2016

Many museums in the U.S. and abroad don't allow large camera bags. If one lens won't do, there are belt pouches and fanny packs which often pass muster. If you get one without stiff partitions, it will fold flat when not in use. An empty, non-collapsible "day bag" is one of the items I will never again carry.

eric_arnold · May 5, 2016

I'm taking a lot of heat for that "20 pound" camera bag.

</blockquote>

no one ever said you couldnt have a heavy bag, just that it was kind of quaint and archaic, and not exactly appropriate for light travel use. if you want to go out into the field with two daguerreotypes mounted on horse-drawn carriages, we won't stop you.

mark_davidson1 · May 5, 2016

The OP wanted to save weight.

My vote goes for the Sony 6300 and a few lenses for the balance of IQ and weight. Not the best range of native lenses but the best IQ body in that size.

Next I would choose a GX-8 or the next OMD EM5 . Both solid performers with a great lens range and real weight advantages.

eric_arnold · May 6, 2016

Not the best range of native lenses but the best IQ body in that size.

</blockquote>

that seems to be the consensus with Sony E-mount: if you can live with the lenses... and for a lot of casual to semi-serious photography, i'm sure one could manage. also a solid choice for video shooters. but with Fuji now going to the 24mp sensor, and with their already-existing lens lineup, they are gonna be hard to hold back in the APS-C sensor category.

Next I would choose a GX-8 or the next OMD EM5 . Both solid performers with a great lens range and real weight advantages.

</blockquote>

the problem i have with m4/3 is that once you get past the kit lenses, you're paying as much for the really good lenses as for some DSLR lenses, with a built-in IQ limitation at higher ISO levels. we may never see a m4/3 camera at 24mp due to diffraction levels, and where the 2x crop factor is most useful, in longer telephoto lenses, goes against the compact ethos of mirrorless "modern rangefinder" to some degree. that said, the 35-100 does have weight savings over a DSLR 70-200, and is field-carryable, not to mention affordable with the current rebate price. so, yes, you can realize some weight/size savings with m4/3, but at the cost of low-light performance. i actually thought the LX100 made for a nice travel camera, would be interesting to see the next-gen model.

Ed_Ingold · May 6, 2016

The OP wanted to save weight.

</blockquote>

He is also a "perfectionist," unwilling to sacrifice the quality of his D800E. How is that consistent with a 24 MP, APS-C sensor with an AA filter?

that seems to be the consensus with Sony E-mount: if you can live with the lenses.

</blockquote>

Which lenses are missing?

eric_arnold · May 6, 2016

unwilling to sacrifice the quality of his D800E

</blockquote>

what the OP actually said was, "Which brand has the best lens options, image quality and convenience of features to substitute for the D800E." in the end, he decided he didnt have enough time to learn a new system, but he was willing enough to pose a question here and go to a camera store to try things out.

Which lenses are missing?

</blockquote>

here we go again. it's not so much that so many are missing (although there's nothing in native E mount faster than 1.8, and the native primes are basic), it's moreso that the ones there are fail to excite. the 16-50 kit zoom gets pretty bad reviews. then there's the pricey but imperfect 16-70/4. and the 18-105/4 "power zoom" -- a P&S feature. i guess you could get the basic 18-55 or the 18-200 superzoom, but Sony A6xxx series owners i know actually have said good things about the sigma primes, so there's that. i think the Sony A6xxx series had a little bit more appeal back when Fuji only had 16mp bodies but that's less the case from an IQ standpoint now, especially because Fuji does have fast primes, portrait lenses, 2.8 zooms, etc. that said, there are other reasons to get an A6XXX other than absolute IQ, and the people i know who have them like them for the size/convenience factor and fast AF, so i wouldnt rule that out as a travel camera, i just probably wouldnt invest heavily into an E-mount system at this point.

Ed_Ingold · May 6, 2016

While APS-C stagnates, FE (full-frame) lenses are enjoying a rapid growth, not only from Sony but Zeiss, Voigtlander, Sigma and a host of other manufacturers. They are fully compatible with E-mount APS-C cameras like the A6300. The Sony/Zeiss 16-35/4 FE is an excellent lens, which would serve as a "normal" 24-50 equivalent on the A6300. If you want something faster in a prime, the Sony/Zeiss 35/1.4 is a world-class lens, with a price to match and on the hefty side, as a 50 mm equivalent. Then there are the Sigma ART lenses for Canon, which can be used with full compatibility on the Sony with a a simple adapter, at half the price of their Zeiss counterparts. Let us not forget Touit lenses, which offer Zeiss performance at Sigma prices.

The "no native E lens" mantra is wearing a little thin, as is the "f/2.8 (f/1.4) or nothing" rant.

aplumpton · May 6, 2016

Eric, Samyang will issue in July a 50mm f1.4 for E mount, as well as a 14mm superwide. I don't need either at the moment.

Ed_Ingold · May 6, 2016

Not out yet, but Voigtlander is on a roll too, with three new FF lenses for the Sony E (FE) mount. Not the fastest lenses in the world, but generally acceptable quality.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4233907278/voigtlander-announces-three-new-extreme-wide-angle-lenses

aplumpton · May 6, 2016

I hope they didn't just put an E mount on the existing 12mm f5.6 lens. Many former M mount and LTM optics have shown poorer performance in the corners and edges of the Sony full frame. Puts described the general problem several years ago when he compared a Zeiss 50mm (designed for digital as well as film recording) with the equivalent Summicron on a FF Leica.

Ed_Ingold · May 6, 2016

It looks like Voigtlander is taking Sony seriously. Steve Huff gives the 15 v3 a thumbs-up in this first look posting. The v2 had a good reputation for night sky shots. http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2016/04/25/first-look-voigtlander-15-f4-5-iii-for-sony-e-mount-awesome/

The A6300 has a lot going for it, but without IBIS, camera shake limits its resolution at any shutter speed slower than 1/4f (2 stops), and diffraction below f/22.

eric_arnold · May 6, 2016

I hope they didn't just put an E mount on the existing 12mm f5.6 lens.

</blockquote>

looks like that's exactly what they did. from DPReview: "Both the 12mm and 15mm (pictured above) versions are presently available with Voigtländer’s VM-mount; the 10mm lens is an entirely new product." I am of the mind to welcome more ultra-wide lenses into the world, but these three new FE lenses, plus the Samyang 14 and Batis 18, also for FE, don't exactly solve the lens situation for the Nex/E-mount bodies.

The A6300 has a lot going for it, but without IBIS, camera shake limits its resolution at any shutter speed slower than 1/4f (2 stops), and diffraction below f/22.

</blockquote>

you'll hit the diffraction threshold well before f/22 on 24mp APS-C. Photozone doesnt even test below f/11; as they say in many of their Sony reviews: "Diffraction has a limiting effect on image quality starting at f/11 at all focal lengths."

Ed_Ingold · May 6, 2016

If you read more carefully, I said that the uncertainty due to diffraction would not exceed that of CAMERA SHAKE at a shutter speed of 1/F until about f/22. Inclusion of camera shake implies that the camera is hand-held, and not on a tripod or test fixture.

Camera shake has a standard deviation in a FF sensor of about 20 microns, and is a constant independent of the lens or sensor. Diffraction varies linearly with the numerical aperture. For green light (500 mmicrons), the first order Airy disc is about 10 microns in diameter, which means it is 20 microns at f/16. You would not see its effect until it were significantly greater than 20 microns (camera shake), or about f/22.

Photozone conducts their tests using a particular camera, and analyzes the resulting image. Resolution cannot exceed that of the sensor, and is consequently always less than the ideal number. The pitch of the light cells is proportional to the square root of the resolution in MP. It varies from about 12.7 microns at 6 MP to 4.5 microns at 48 MP. Camera shake is much greater than the resolution of any digital camera of interest.

If the camera is held steady, the uncertainty due to diffraction and sensor pitch are about equal at 24 MP and f/8. Likewise at 48 MP and f/16, etc. Whatever combination you choose, below that point the sensor limits resolution. Above that point, diffraction. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I've used up my words, so let's try a picture.

In the following crude graph, the ordinate is uncertainty in microns. I've kept the abscissa linear, but varied the scale in order to encompass a reasonable range of sensor resolution and f/stop. The common denominator is the scale of the vertical axis in microns.

Camera shake is constant for a given shutter speed. At about 2 deg/sec, it translates to about 20 microns uncertainty at a shutter speed inversely proportional to the focal length, 1/f, on a FF sensor. The line moves up or down as the shutter speed is varied.

The distance between sensor cells is inversely proportional to the square root of the sensor size in MP. It varies from 12.7 microns at 6 MP to 4.5 microns at 48 MP. Total resolution cannot exceed that of the sensor.

Diffraction is directly proportional to the f/stop, and is about 9.9 microns at f/8, for a wavelength of 500 millimicrons (green). It should be a straight line on the graph, but hopefully this will suffice.

If you draw a horizontal line on the chart, the point where it intersects the sensor or diffraction curves shows the relative effect of those variables. To the left of the intersection on the graph, diffraction is less than sensor resolution. Above the intersection, diffraction is increasingly significant.

I am ignoring the fact that lenses are not perfect, and that these uncertainty is just that - a fuzzy circle. If you want Z-transforms, that will have to wait a bit. It would be nice to put MTF values on the chart, plotted v frequency, but I do not have those figures. In other words, there is a missing line for the quality of the lens, which would be limiting in some regions. F/stops can't go to zero, because that would mean an infinitely large entrance pupil or a focal length of zero. (Nothing like that available at B&H).

Ed_Ingold · May 6, 2016

The graph is approximately to scale. Every time I try to plot it with Microsoft Excel 2007, Excel goes dead after a minute or so, even without touching the keyboard. After further consideration, I could have plotted "camera shake" as a curve with points representing various shutter speeds as stops faster or slower than the 1/F rule, zero being 20 microns uncertainty. I'm also assuming a "normal" lens with a 47 degree FOV. Consequently that line changes with focal length.

Given these assumptions, here's a practical example. The sensor is fixed for a given camera. If you locate a point on the sensor surve corresponding to 24 MP and draw a horizontal line, That line intersects the diffraction curve at f/8. That means if the lens is more open than f/8, the results are limited by the sensor. Closed down from f/8, the system is diffraction limited. It's not marked, but 42 MP is about 1/4 the way between 48 and 24. A horizontal line from that point intersects the diffraction curve at about f/5.6, etc.

Camera shake alone contributes more uncertainty than any sensor larger than about 2 MP, and more than diffraction to a point between f/16 and f/22. If you double (shorter time) the shutter speed, the shake line goes down to 10 microns, etc. It's a linear relationship. Increase the shutter speed by two stops, and its effect is about the same as diffraction at f/5.6, but a sensor with less than 48 MP would then limit the resolution.

Diffraction is a physical property of light, so it doesn't matter which lens or camera you use. Any defects in the lens will increase the uncertainty at a given f/stop (nothing you do can reduce it). Four cups of coffee, and the camera shake line will go out of whack. If there is scattering or parallax in the sensor, the uncertainty will increase. Focusing errors will increase the uncertainty in a non-linear manner. However the "error" considered acceptable is expressed as the depth of field, which is on the order of 20 microns, and would be additive to a horizontal rhumb line.

In other words, the concept of this graph is ideal, not practical. Hopefully it helps explain the complex relationships involved, and why you can't say something is diffraction limited, sensor limited or lens limited further information. In the real world, the answer is 'yes and no..."

jordan2240 · May 7, 2016

Likely too late to this party to do any good, and a 'real photographer' might not even consider this idea, but in your situation, I'd take a serious look at the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 (1" sensor) all-in-one, which I've recently acquired and find quite liberating over much heavier gear, or, if not interested in the telephoto end of things, the Lumix LX100, an APSC-sized tool that gets incredible reviews. Not only will your back be your friend forever, but if I had a dog, I'd bet its life on two things: one, you wouldn't miss a single shot you could get with your other gear, and two, absolutely no one who looks at the pics would have any idea what camera was used or how expensive the lens was.

Allen Herbert · May 7, 2016

"absolutely no one who looks at the pics would have any idea what camera was used or how expensive the lens was". Bill.

There's a thought.

Allen Herbert · May 7, 2016

A part truth....<div>

00dvIE-562850484.jpg.74e9cdb205b0f2c04198496a7ceb3f37.jpg

</div>

eric_arnold · May 8, 2016

you can't say something is diffraction limited, sensor limited or lens limited further information

</blockquote>

actually, you can. thanks for the lengthy, entirely unasked-for explanations (and the nifty graph!), but you are basically refuting the findings of professional lens testers like Photozone.

why? i'm not sure, but i would take their word for it than Sony 24mp sensors are diffraction-limited past f/11, and that <a href="http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/965-zeiss55f18?start=1">diffraction impacts can degrade image quality on Sony 42mp sensors</a> from f/8 onward, over yours. This isn't inconsistent with similar findings from other professional lens/camera testers, btw, and happens to be a reality of the digital camera era. This is more of a general rule of thumb, however, than a hard and fast limit, since the diffraction threshold may differ with different lens/body combos. For example, <a href="http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/974-sony90f28macro?start=1">photozone's test of the Sony 90mm macro </a>found diffraction impacts on a 42mp body dont start until f/11, not f/8, but still, they caution, "Diffraction effects have a higer impact from about f/11. The quality is still good at f/16 whereas f/22 should be avoided for obvious reasons." That's good to know, because a macro shooter might be inclined to stop down to f/22. Also, these results aren't limited to just Sony bodies; in their <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/817-nikkorafs10528vrfx?start=1">review</a> of the 105/2.8 VR on a Nikon D3x (24mp), photozone says, "From f/11 onwards, diffraction starts to take its toll and reduces the achievable resolution. The lens can be stopped down to f/32, but at this setting not much resolution is left. This is a physical limitation and not a design flaw of the lens."

The obvious implication here is that macro shooters who need super deep DoF can either take a resolution hit, or eschew high-resolution bodies altogether. this also has implications for ultra-high res bodies, like the 100mp Phase One sensor.

Ed_Ingold · May 8, 2016

My analysis is consistent with Photozone results. The graph shows diffraction roughly equal to the cell spacing of a 42 MP sensor at f/5.6, in the absence of camera shake. That's an ideal value, which is always worse in practice (i.e., starts at a lower f/stop) due to lens design, various aberrations and focusing errors. You will notice that Photozone finds resolution begins to drop above f/5.6 in an empirical test, but not call it diffraction until it slaps you in the face at f/11 or above. It is no surprise that they avoid optical theory in a three page review, considering the confusion even a cursory analysis seems to evoke.

Sign In

Which system in 2016?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in