Which system in 2016?

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>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. <br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess Ansel Adams was amiss taking his seminal photographs of Yosemite with an 8x10 view camera. While Adams was equally adept in the darkroom, many of his images are displayed as contact prints. He did, of course, take a memorable picture of Georgia O'Keefe in a moment of levity with a 35 mm camera. Perhaps he understood what equipment could and could not do, and used it appropriately.<br>

<br>

It is popular to say that high resolution sensors magnify problems with technique, lenses or subject motion. If you reflect on it, none are changed, just made visible when otherwise obscured by low resolution and sloppy technique. Does the sensor "know," in an anthropomorphic fashion, that "this is a bad lens," or vice versa the lens? Does the photographer's hand shake more if he feels the power of the sensor in his grip? Laughable, yes, but that's the prevailing view in some quarters.<br>

<br>

Sometimes it's better to have it and not use it, than to need it and not have it. Oh wait! That applies to a lot of things.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>"Attn: Photo.net. I would like to ask what time it is?"<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Immediately starts an argument about the history of clockmaking.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>I made the jump from an APS-C EOS to an APS-C Sony NEX 7 about a year and a half ago and I find I haven't really looked back. About the only thing I wish I had that I currently don't is a prime or zoom that gets down to a very wide or perhaps even ultra-wide focal length. Preferably equivalent to 17mm with a 35mm or FF camera, but 20mm would be doable. I find that 24.3mp is plenty for everything I've come across so far, and given that this translates into an image size of 6000 x 4000 pixels I don't see my needing anything more than that for the foreseeable future.</p>

<p>Now if I were going to some place like Italy, I might seriously think about going with an FF camera, but given that I've already developed a strong liking for Sony's mirrorless technology, I'd probably just go with an A7II. That would give me access to the wide lenses I want/need and might even let me use the 17mm lenses I already own without encountring too many optical aberrations. The A7RII is probably just needless overkill and needless budget drain. I'd rather spend that extra money on more lenses.</p>

<p>And speaking of lenses, one of the main reason why I bought a Sony mirrorless was so that I can buy adapters for, and use, the rather large selection of manual focus lenses I already own, some of which are of top notch quality. And given Sony's focus peaking feature, I find that using them with my NEX 7 is quite easy. So if it were me going on that trip, yeah, I'd probably spring for an A7II and get a couple of good zooms to go with it, but the rest of the lenses I'd bring would be the best of my manual focus ones. And I would rest secure in the knowledge that the images I capture would be of excellent quality.</p>

<p>When I was younger, I didn't mind at all toting around 20 or 30 pounds of photo gear. Now, I'll admit, it would be more of a strain, but I'd probably still <em>bring </em>that much. I just wouldn't tote it all around at the same time. I feel quite confident, however, that I could pare things down to a "walking around" outfit that would meet most of my photo requirements, but which would also be quite manageable from a weight perspective, without having to sacrifice the quality of the images I would be taking.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>It is popular to say that high resolution sensors magnify problems with technique, lenses or subject motion. If you reflect on it, none are changed, just made visible when otherwise obscured by low resolution and sloppy technique. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sooooooo, diffraction is just a myth caused by sloppy technique, then? ;) </p>

[vandit]

<p>"I guess Ansel Adams was amiss taking his seminal photographs of Yosemite with an 8x10 view camera."</p>

<p>Really? You think that one example of a person shooting large format, back in the era when the technology gap was much larger, is a sufficient answer? </p>

<p>What about all the many superb landscape photos that have been produced after that, with 35mm cameras - would, say 5 Nat Geo photographers shooting 35mm be equal to 1 Ansel shooting LF? What about the fact that the gap between the various small-format cameras in 2016 is orders of magnitude lower than the gap between LF and 35mm back in those days? </p>

<p>Your statement esseentially only males the point that back in the days of Adams, there was a significant gap in technical quality between large format and 35mm. I am at a loss to understand how that is relevant to this discussion today, other than an attempt to take things out of the context of this discussion and make this into a photographic version of a debate on how many angels can dance on a pinhead. </p>

<p>I reckon Moonlight over Hernandez would be just as amazing if it was shot with a 16MP Fuji or a 42mm Sony or a Canikon in 2016. The additional megapixels of a Sony isnt what would make it better, but the composition and Adam's post-processing. </p>

<p>And I will repeat: I have yet to see a photo, either on Photo.net or elsewhere, where i have felt "ooh, this is a great shot, but an additional 10 megapixels would taken it from good to great"</p>

<p>If you feel differently, that is fine. You are entitled to your beliefs and your 20lb backpack - there is no need to go about trying to prove that your opinions are objectively better. </p>

[vandit]

<p>As an addendum, i just noticed that the OP has mentioned he is a perfectionist. </p>

<p>I dont know in what sense he is using that term, but if his sense of perfectionism includes indulging in the sort of exercise posted a page or 2 earlier (shooting buildings and then looking at the photos at 100% for technical imperfections), then i concede that my advice is going to mostly irrelevant (I only look at 100% to see if the focus is correct. I have never in my life checked corner sharpness of any photo. Etc. etc.). </p>

<p>Following the advice of the more technical-oriented members may be a better option, in that case.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>Really? You think that one example of a person shooting large format, back in the era when the technology gap was much larger, is a sufficient answer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You do disservice the the many photographers who still use large format cameras, as well as medium format.</p>

<p>Prints by Ansel Adams or his followers bring princely sums on the market, and people stand in line to buy them. Despite the magnificent photos in National Geographic Magazine, you can't even give old copies away to charity.</p>

<p>Photos posted on PNET are no more than 700 pixels wide, not even cell phone quality. Do you think there would be a difference in a framed print nearly 10 times that size (20"x 24" @ 300 dpi)?</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>Sooooooo, diffraction is just a myth caused by sloppy technique, then? ;)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Diffraction is proportional to the numerical aperture, independent of focal length. The first order Airy Disc diameter is approximately equal to the pitch of a 42 MP sensor (4 µm) at f/5.6. Not many lenses are diffraction limited at f/5.6, so diffraction would become significant at some higher f/stop. Below that value, other aberrations would predominate. If the resolution falls off above f/5.6 @ 42 MP in test results, it is likely that the lens is diffraction limited at f/8.</p>

<p>"Sloppy" was not the most appropriate term to use. What I find is that in order to achieve images sharp at the pixel level requires extraordinary care, including a solid tripod and head, careful focusing, mirror lockup (if relevant), electronic first shutter, a remote or cable release, and image stabilization turned off.</p>

<p>No matter how careful I try, I usually get some doubling in the image if I use my finger on the shutter release. For focusing, even a 16 mm lens at f/8 has a distinctly limited DOF at the pixel level. IS often produces a minute jiggle at the moment of exposure, often visible at 1/500 second. It is unfair to categorize a lesser but practical effort as "sloppy," given reasonable competency.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns">The law of diminishing returns is in full effect here...</a></p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>In every culture there are sheep, wolves and sheep dogs. Sheep seem to be happy with what they have, the others try harder ;)</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Diminishing returns are still returns. Some people push the envelope, others consider "honorable mention" a stretch goal. Who was the second person to fly faster than the speed of sound?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Diffraction? It's seriousness is mis-understood, imho.<br /><br />Let's say you shoot a photo with a 12MP camera and a 24MP camera. Let's say that diffraction "sets in" on the 12MP camera past f11 and the 24MP past f8 with the lens you will be using with bothy.<br /><br />Now...<br /><br />Shoot at f11, <br /><br />Print both photos at 16 x 20.<br /><br />They will be identical unless you use a loupe, and if you're using a loupe to look at a photo, you're doing it wrong.<br /><br />Gup took off a LONG time ago and just bought a Holga and a film scanner...</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>if you're using a loupe to look at a photo, you're doing it wrong.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You don't hang out in the large format forum ;)</p>

<p>I looked, and my lenses have f/11. It's good to know. There's a little rough spot at f/8 where the grease has piled up ;)</p>

<p>Diffraction at f/11 would be two pixels in a 42 MP sensor, less than one pixel for a 12 MP. As I said, you have to cross all the "T"s to do even that well.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>So Gup, how is all the tech talk, interesting as it may be, contributing to your OP? As the primary person interested, your choice will be of interest to me, and it likely won't be Peter's Holga (as fun as that is) or a helium balloon under your D800e and a maxi zoom.</p>

<p>I have only curious interest in your decision, as I have already crossed that bridge, although personal solutions are often just that an differ between photographers (and mobility concerns). One thing this OP has reminded me of is the fact that I can do 95% ++ of my photography with a very simple two lens (one a small zoom, the other a prime) kit with a mirrorless and keep it all within 5 or 6 pounds. No more the Pelican case and 5 to 10 items (although the Pelican can be good travelling, to lock it under the bed when not needed or to sustain rough handling) it just doesn't make sense any more (and it really never did).</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>it is likely that the lens is diffraction limited at f/8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i guess i'll accept this as an admission that diffraction does, in fact, exist, and is indeed an issue on higher-MP bodies.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In every culture there are sheep, wolves and sheep dogs</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is extremely random. whatever. but what about cats?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>this is extremely random. whatever. but what about cats?<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And gerbils and rat snakes...</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>i guess i'll accept this as an admission that diffraction does, in fact, exist, and is indeed an issue on higher-MP bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Other issues are more significant, even at f/11, even on a tripod. Hand-held at f/22, loss of resolution due to diffraction would be insignificant compared to camera shake at a shutter speed appropriate for that focal length (1/f).</p>

<p>The lenses I'm using on the A7Rii appear to be diffraction limited at about f/8. With the same lenses on a 12 MP sensor, you would not see the effects of diffraction until about f/11. Up to that point, resolution would be limited by the sensor, not the lens or diffraction.</p>

<p>I don't think you're quite ready for a quiz on this subject ;)</p>

[andylynn]

<blockquote>

<p>this is extremely random. whatever. but what about cats?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />For cat photos, use a DSLR for the focus tracking. If the cat is sleeping, use an iPhone. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Other issues are more significant</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the admissions just keep on coming. why, it was only a few hours ago someone was claiming all these "issues" were really just sloppy technique. <br>

<br>

and, just for fun: wildebeest. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>the admissions just keep on coming. why, it was only a few hours ago someone was claiming all these "issues" were really just sloppy technique.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is either beyond you, or you are feigning ignorance for the sake of argument.</p>

<p>Please enlighten us, Eric, on how these factors interact and how you would improve the situation - resolution, lens quality, focus accuracy, camera shake and diffraction for starters? If you have something to add to this list, please feel free to improvise. Is there anything in this list related to technique? </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i can improve the situation by pointing out that this thread has gone way off the original topic, because someone here is an egomaniac. </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Wow, by the time this is done, you may have to start over in 2017. Any one decide anything?</p>

[Gup]

<p>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfectionism<br>

Perfectionism: a disposition to regard anything short of perfection as unacceptable.<br>

That's all. Around here it's often considered a personality disorder. I just do everything within my power to ensure my results are the best I can achieve with the tools at hand. Otherwise, I will do it again. And again. I don't compromise easily. Having good tools is essential to that end. Having the best tools available to me only makes sense no matter what the undertaking. <br>

So, after several hours spent at the two stores in town, 2 hours down the road, I came away somewhat disillusioned with the choices and instead bought a neoprene, form-fitting cover to stretch over the Nikon with lens mounted. This will allow me to carry the camera over a shoulder with a lens mounted and not worry about it bouncing off the occasional obstacle. I'll pack two more lenses, a flash and a small tripod in a backpack instead of a dedicated camera bag. My wife will carry the pack if I'm not able to, at her insistence. I'll be able to access the pack without her even removing it. Did I mention she's perfect? :) </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>The single most important thing emerging from this thread for me is that its possible to reduce the size/weight of what you carry considerably without changing your system. <br>

Changing a system to something smaller and lighter is but one way to do it. Another way is to just carry less. I'm going to pick on Edward a bit here because his philosophy of what to carry and where to carry it is so very different from mine. I recall years ago he posted the weight of his Hasselblad MF system which sent me right off to the scales with my MF bag . The answer was that my fairly comprehensive Bronica system weighed half of his. Now he has a working kit of Sony stuff that weighs 20lb. Meanwhile my "working kit" based on FF Canons weighs about 13lb with 3 L zooms and all the paraphernalia I deem to be essential.</p>

<p>Part of the issue for all of us is how we choose to photograph and where we keep stuff. For me if I'm working a city I'll be in a central hotel so I can easily get back to drop or pick up stuff. Otherwise I'm predominantly car-based with walks away . So I have a second body with me but its in the car or hotel room. The tripod/head is in the car unless I'm absolutely sure I'm going to use it, or in my city hotel room. For maybe 90% of my photographs it doesn't really matter that much whether I use a tripod or not. I don't carry chargers, laptops , storage devices when I'm photographing, though obviously I have them on the trip. I don't have a mindset that tells me I need to have everything photographic in one bag/in one place/with me every minute. </p>

<p>And like some others on this thread I'm cynical about how much weight I'll actually save if I switch to a mirrorless system- especially the Sony A7 which has a lot that I'd like but where last time I looked had lenses that were materially a similar weight to my Canons. If I changed to a smaller system it would be to something that could get my carrying kit down to notably below 10lb, and using my current lenses or buying Sony A isn't going to do that. </p>

<p>I have a lot of sympathy with the solution the OP has chosen. <br>

</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>One thing that the lens makers do not seem to have exploited enough is the reduction of lens weight by sacrificing a stop or two in lens opening. The slower quality optics are either not there or not advertised enough. The higher ISO capabilities of many recent system cameras, mirrorless or other, makes most needs for high lens speed somewhat redundant. Scenes requiring purposeful OOF and bokeh effects can stil be shot with some light high speed primes. There I think is the future for smaller size mirrorless cameras and lighter, smaller zooms and primes. I like the small size and comparative lightness of an A7 and a 50mm Loxia MF or even an AF standard focal length lens of that speed. And the f4 16-35mm zoom is really fairly light, though still bulky. I could be happy even with an f5.6 zoom, if it could be made even lighter, smaller. High image quality at 1000 ISO and more is now. How often does one need f2.8 on a zoom?</p>