Peter_in_PA

<p>Shun, EXACTLY!</p> <p>I think some people still remember the D3/D700 launch. Identical sensors, similar AF capability, much more overlap. There is really very little significant overlap between D500 and D7x00. And there is REALLY very little overlap between D5 and the rest of the FX lineup.<br> People complain I guess, but that is a brilliant product strategy!</p>

<p>I can see the D500 is going to be a polarizing camera.</p> <p>I think many are thinking it's the next step from the 7200 and are nit-picking the differences.</p> <p>If you're a D7x00 user I suspect the D500 wasn't made for you in mind. If you are a sports photog who has to make his dollar stretch further because that world is shrinking, but photos still need to be made... if you are an action or journalism photographer... that's your camera. One of those and a D5 both around your neck at the next Olympics will be a sweet deal. Wildlife photographer on safari? Ideal. Soccer Mom? Er... nope...</p> <p>If you're doing landscapes, portraits, studio photography, it's wrong. Nikon knows that.</p> <p>Frankly, I think both of these cameras are potentially big home runs.</p>

<p>The sports photogs who need reach are going to be thrilled. I thought it would be called "D9x00" or something, though. The fact that they have now effectively used up their 3-digit codes means, to me, that they are hinting at major re-imagining of cameras in the next generation, but maybe not.</p> <p>I think these are probably just what the doctor ordered.</p>

<p>I predict that you will not be satisfied with this solution. Honestly. But if you are, we want to know about it.</p>

<blockquote> <p>f2.8 is f2.8 regardless of what lens mount you use. </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Again, to be <em><strong>perfectly clear... </strong></em><br> <br> this is true of light-gathering. It is not true of effective depth of field in the final image or video. It just isn't. Generally, you can multiply the f-stop by 2 to get the effective DoF on a crop frame camera compared to 35mm SLR film, just like you do with focal length. There is no free lunch. So a 28mm f2.8 lens on my µ43 behaves like a 56mm f5.6 lens. Yes, I've tested this, but didn't need to as it's self-evident when you think about it.<br /><br> <br> Again, photo.net has been asked what time it is and is expounding on the history and philosophy of clock-making.</p>

<p>You want a MF lens, you do not want focus-by-wire. I TOTALLY get that.<br /><br />I'd get something like the Voigtlander f0.95 used in that range, but one lens is NOT going to do it.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Peter, Michael said this: "I like the AI and AIS 28mm 2.8 ...".</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Yes, and part of my commenting here is to point out what I think the unwiseness of buying such a lens for video use on a µ43 camera.<br> <br> And then adding a speed booster or something like that? There are better ways to spend your money if you can only afford one lens.<br> </p>

<p>Mukul, that might be an oversimplification, though, and it depends a lot on aperture vs. "effective aperture" (but only in terms of depth of field, not in terms of actual light gethering ability.<br> <br />So... if you have a 28mm f2.8 lens and use it wide open on µ43, it is roughly like a 56mm f5.6 in terms of depth of field. The aperture doesn't change, but the way the DOF works does. But if you had a 28mm f0.95, it would "look like" a 56mm f1.8 on µ43.<br /><br />This is why there are some very fast lenses for smaller video sensors, and even quite a few 3rd party f0.95 and such for µ43 video use.</p>

<p>See my answer in that other thread.</p>

<p>Nikkor is not the answer. And, being a 43 user, I understand about the AF by wire being a real challenge for serious video.</p> <p>There are a lot of great µ43 lenses and I have used some of them for still video, but if you need manual focus for pro video, there are some good solutions out there that work well with some of the ancillary gear that is designed to pull focus and zoom for you. Not Nikkor.</p> <p>Voigtlander, Carl Zeiss, and on a budget, Rokinon, all make manual focus lenses for your mount, some of which will interface with some of the extra gear you'll possibly be renting or using.</p> <p>But only one lens? That'll drive you totally bonkers I expect.</p>

<p>Maybe he's augmenting, not replacing. A lot of folks do.</p>

<p>Bruce, modern sensor technology seems to be designed for that use. Doesn't seem to be a problem anymore.</p>

<p>Dima, that helps tremendously.<br /><br />Are you a reader? If so, get this book. http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-3rd-Edition-Photographs/dp/0817439390</p> <p>Others can chime in with suggestions of web sites that explain this stuff perhaps, but that book would be very helpful I think.</p> <p>The focus issue is different. You may have had a subject moving too much for your focus mode. Might have needed to be in AF-C instead of AF-S for instance.</p> <p>You want to learn more about harnessing aperture. The band photo taken at a wider aperture would have given you what you wanted I think, focused on the guy in front. Also, if you're at the wide end of your zoom, depth of field is not your friend for such thoughts.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The software can help to enhance an image. But there were no such things way back in the days of film.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Actually, there always was a lot of color correction and masking and dodging and burning. Most of what photoshop does in those regard was based on analog techniques.<br /><br> <br> Even in B&W, photogs like Ansel Adams did an amazing amount of wonderful stuff in the darkroom after the photo had been taken. Many of his finest images are totally dependent on it.<br> <br> You are NOT wrong about learning the nuances of photography though. I find that the percentage of bad images I take that are my fault is pretty much 100%. And spraying and praying is never the answer either.</p>

<p>Based on your description, and my experience in which I change my lenses on my µ43 cameras a LOT more often, as long as you're careful, you won't have a problem. I always point the camera down when changing lenses, and never leave the front open for more than a few seconds.</p> <p>I also had more of a dust issue with DSLRs, maybe because that mirror flapping around is moving dust around. But even then I had very little issue.</p>

<p>Doesn't matter what mount to me... but I'd like a reasonable step between the entry level and the pro level in a pair of zooms, wide to moderate tele and moderate to semi-long tele. For me, on µ43, that would be a 12-35 or 40 f4 and a 40 - 150 f4. But I'm stuck with either plastic fantastic or sell a kidney expensive...</p>

<p>Know also that most of the really great photos you see in magazines and even online were subjected to rigorous post-processing. color balance, sharpening, and other sometimes very drastic photo editing is the key to great photos.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The <em><strong>IMPOSSIBILITY</strong></em> is the combination of night sports, the desire of at least 1/500 sec and a slow f5.6 lens.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> I fixed it for you.</p>

<p>Depending on how you use your photos, the short and sad answer is that there is no way to effectively shoot evening sports on a budget. It is among the very most demanding things you can shoot.</p> <p>If you are just posting images online and printing below 8 x 10, you have a chance maybe. But you're not going to get consistent awesome results without spending more than my car is worth.</p>

<p>I'd get the 11-20. I had the 11-16 and loved it but always wished it would go longer by just a teeny bit.</p>

<p>yyeah, I'm thinkin' he meant different KITS.<br /><br />But if 1080p is a must, there is only the EM-5 mk II, which, imho, is THE µ43 camera to buy unless you need/want 4K video.</p>

<p>You need an EM 5 mk II if you want 1080p video. The original EM 5 is 1080i only.</p> <p>I think the EM 10 mk II and EM-1 are 1080p.</p>

<p>I opted for the panasonic 20mm f1.7 as a "normal prime" because the 17mm f2.8 didn't offer enough speed above the kit lens, which I find just fine at the wide end.</p> <p>Not quite wide enough was my concern, but I could leave that lens on all day, and the quality of photos is really really much better than the Oly kit lens. (I got the original one, which focuses noisy, but has, apparently, slightly better image quality).<br /><br />I would think that if you get any of the current lenses that are below f2 you will be happy, but the f2.8 pancakes? Not so sure.</p>

<p>Joe, we need to hear from the OP. If he's not printing big, and since it's on DX, 1:1 may be way less important than people are assuming it is.<br /><br />If it's merely for posting on the internet or printing under 8 x 10, a 1:2 image on DX cropped in is sufficient for sure.</p> <p>Let's not forget, this isn't a working pro asking a question, it's a person with an entry level (but excellent) camera who joined photo.net two days ago to ask this question.<br> <br />Sometimes on here I get annoyed when someone asks what time it is and we answer by explaining how he must build his own Rolex watch from scratch in order to find out...</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe. For a LITTLE more money, if you're shooting static objects with macro where AF is useless and even metering is not totally necessary, I'd rather have (and in fact do still have) the Nikon 55mm f3.5 or f2.8 macro lens. Better investment than extension tubes on a zoom lens imho.</p>