eric_arnold

<p>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.<br> As he notes,</p> <blockquote> <p> 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.</p> </blockquote> <p>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.<br> <br> Hogan also notes:</p> <blockquote> <p>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 <em>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</em>. </p> </blockquote> <p>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.<br> <br> 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. </p>

<blockquote> <p>One possible reason is to allow the passing of electronic information and in-body aperture control.</p> </blockquote> <p>there are chipped MF lenses, like the Voigtlander SL series, which do this already. i'm just saying, if im shooting that wide, im probably not shooting people or Things That Move. and if im not shooting people, i probably dont need AF. still, this is an interesting development, although i agree it would be more interesting in other focal lengths like 135.</p>

<p>the camera manual is <a href="http://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/323/D500.html">here</a>.</p>

<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>

<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>

<blockquote> <p> Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 OS HSM</p> </blockquote> <p>i'm sure Kent meant the 17-50/2.8 OS HSM, not the 18-50. there was an earlier 18-50/2.8 sigma made which didnt have OS but did have HSM. The Amazon link i provided upthread is for the 17-50 OS, which is a bit better (and more readily available). it's worth $420 for sure -- i paid $800 for mine back when it came out. IIRC, you still have an issue with reach, so this won't solve all your problems. But it's optically a better lens than the 18-55, especially at wider apertures. im not sure it makes sense to buy an 85/1.8 for a concert or two, but the 17-50 is a good investment over time. You may opt to rent a 70-200/2.8 for covering one-time events if you still need reach. </p>

<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>

<p>why would you need AF with a 14mm lens? that's super-ultra-wide. </p>

<p>for $400 you should be able to find a sigma 17-50/2.8 used. in fact, they're only $419 new at <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003A6NU3U/ref=twister_B0064I7J2E?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1">amazon</a>. </p>

<blockquote> <p> I may end up with 2 small mirrorless bodies </p> </blockquote> <p>yeah, it's amazing how small a fuji 2-body kit can be. i can fit 2 bodies and 4-5 lenses in a waistpack.</p>

<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>

<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>

<blockquote> <p> you can usually turn things on or turn them off</p> </blockquote> <p>but who needs a camera that locks? and even if you had one, someone could just pop out the memory card anyway.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I just bought a D7000 refurbished by Nikon. Came with a shutter count of 37. That's "new"! :)</p> </blockquote> <p>most likely, they reset the shutter count post-refurb.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I've often wondered why we can't make our cameras more secure by having to use a PIN or the like</p> </blockquote> <p>because this is a solution to a problem which doesnt exist. why would a camera need to be more secure? it would be a terrible idea for news reporters, photojournalists and the like, basically anyone who needs a fast start-to-shoot time would be frustrated by introducing an additional step which would serve little actual purpose. also, if you really really need this feature, just shoot with an iPhone with a lock code. </p>

<blockquote> <p>You have opinions too, such as a Fuji XT1 as 16 MP APS-C camera standing in for a 36 MP D800E (re-read the OP).</p> </blockquote> <p>Edward, Gup <em>specifically</em> asked for opinions on Fuji as an alternative to the D800E. is it, therefore, surprising that i responded? or should i have cleared it with you and your Sony overlords first? Btw, 36mp vs. 16mp is irrelevant in this situation, and could actually be preferable.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>I am the one filling my shoes</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Never for a moment did i question this. Did you think this was in question? Who else would fill your shoes? Wait, don't answer that. </p> <blockquote> <p>Microphones are connected with cables - lot's of cables. </p> </blockquote> <p>This relates to the OP's query <em>how</em>? Wait, dont answer that one either. We're already up to 6 pages.</p> <blockquote> <p> If I were taking a trip of a lifetime to Italy and Sicily, twenty pounds would not seem like much</p> </blockquote> <p>did you miss the part in the OP's post about his back problems? Muscle spasms on vacation are nothing nice. </p>

<blockquote> <p>If I buy an X-T1 soon, will I regret not waiting for an upgraded body (X-T2?) or a price drop on the X-T1? </p> </blockquote> <p>i would say, yes. i explained this on the other thread, but an updated sensor and improved AF is kind of a big deal for Fuji, even though the XT1 is a fantastic camera as is. and we'll probably see an XT2 this year, which makes a price drop on the 1 imminent.</p> <blockquote> <p>the Fuji refurb'ed XT10 with the 18-55 is probably my best bet at the moment</p> </blockquote> <p>I think that's a solid choice at that price. Fuji has a habit of making baby versions of their flagship bodies which are almost functionally the same. and the 18-55 is really quite good.</p> <blockquote> <p>How is the ISO adjusted, does it have to be done through a menu?<br> As far as the images coming out of the camera, it has the same sensor, but does it have the film simulation aswell?</p> </blockquote> <p>You can set one of the Fn buttons for ISO or access it through Qmenu. not that big a deal in practice. All the Fuji x-cameras have film simulation. havent checked specifically but the XT10 should have every FS mode on the XT1. i believe the new XP2 is the only body thusfar with Acros however. </p> <blockquote> <p> The Fuji way is probably going to provide more than we expect from the XT-2.</p> </blockquote> <p>Well, i dont know about that. i'm pretty sure the expectation is for the guts of an XPro2 sans hybrid VF in the XT1 body style which is more suitable for longer lenses and zooms than the rangefinder-esque model. It would be great if they kept the AF joystick thingy too. they may put some other refinements on it too, but if you look at the X100 line's product development, it took until the third iteration of that body, the X100t, for them to substantially tweak that, the 100s model was really incremental.</p> <blockquote> <p>That way I can get shooting and still see what the X-T2 holds without being overly financially committed to a body.</p> </blockquote> <p>This was my approach too. I bought an XE1+18-55, then added more lenses while i waited for them to release better bodies. strongly considering an XP2, but i think i will wait for the XT2 before pulling the trigger. the XP1's are also super inexpensive right now, although there are a few more limitations with that because no on-chip PDAF.<br> <br> what i like about the "Fuji way" is they listen to their customer base and are a really photographer-centric company. it's easy to get a little fanboyish about their gear, but it's the little things which matter, like continuing to release firmware upgrades for older cameras, and having their entire product line be capable of the same image quality as their flagship bodies (well, at least until the 24mp XP2 sensor's arrival), and use the same lenses. They've actually addressed some of the aggravating things about Nikon APS-C in their lens offerings, which probably isnt a coincidence. <br> </p>

<blockquote> <p>When traveling, I could count on one hand situations where I really need 20 mm or wider, or longer than 200.</p> </blockquote> <p>i agree that 20mm is on the wide side of wide angle, and 24mm is a more versatile FL overall. That said, i like wide shots and have used wide-angles when traveling for street and landscape, as well as environmental portraits. 20mm as a focal length takes some getting used to, but the reason i suggested the 20/3.5 is because it's super-light and compact, hence suitable as a travel companion. The 24/2.8 AF-D might also work, and is only a little bit heavier and larger than the 20/3.5. FWIW, i don't think there is only one way to do anything. Not everyone likes shooting wide, which takes different compositional skills. But when i was in Cuba shooting street murals in Habana Viejo, i was pretty glad i had the ultrawide zoom with me. </p> <blockquote> <p>I would say only situations outside of those handled by a 35-90 range occur about 15% of the time.</p> </blockquote> <p>That is entirely 100% subjective, and relates to my previous comments about being comfortable with specific focal lengths. If you trained yourself over countless decades to think within a 35-50-90 box, you would have to unlearn all that mental conditioning and maybe even retrain your muscle memory to shoot outside that box with any degree of comfort. But someone else used to shooting wide or tele might shoot considerably more outside that range, depending on various factors. In other words, that 15% number is completely arbitrary and really only applies to your own personal preferences. </p> <blockquote> <p>When you encounter a situation in the field, and you wish you had a different lens or camera, you tend to include that in your kit the next time out.</p> </blockquote> <p>Or not. Sometimes you just adapt to the situation and use what you have, and learn to live with it. Blah blah blah Galen Rowell two lenses and a waistpack, etc. Look, this entire thread has been about choosing a light kit for travel. Somewhere in there, we've had off-road excursions into 20-lb backpacks and now vans with light stands. Maybe this is helpful to the OP, maybe not. I do appreciate you sharing your process, but i dont think a van will fit into an overhead compartment bin or under the seat. </p>

<blockquote> <p>you will probably end up buying both the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 and keep the 24-120 f4 for extended zoom range AND have a range of primes as well. That is where most pros that shoot a range of things, including natural light portraits, find themselves after a number of years.</p> </blockquote> <p>this is where i'm at right now. got the 24-70+70-200+ fast primes in various focal lengths, considering 24-120 for those times i dont need my full pro kit and/or want a one-lens solution with extended reach. i would definitely check off the 2.8 boxes first if you are doing paid work and event shooting or planning to do it down the line.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I would take the 35mm and the 85mm. Or an 24/28 f2.8 and a 50mm</p> </blockquote> <p>i'm with Robin here. a rule of thumb is approx. double/fl for successive prime ranges. IME, 35 and 50 are actually pretty similar in practical terms. in fact, i cant think of too many instances where i'd want a 50 as my second prime if i also had a 35 with me. ive carried a 35, 50, and 85 before, and the 50 ended up being the orphan most times. it's a versatile focal length but can also be kind of flat sometimes. i think a 50 makes more sense as a one-lens solution or with a 24/28 for travel. but then the notion of comfortability also comes into play. i'm happy just shooting the sigma 35 all day because 35 is a great focal length for a prime, its so good optically and it balances well on big-body DSLRs (though its a bit bulky and obtrusive with the lens hood). so i feel very comfortable leaving it on the body unless i want a portrait shot. or a wide shot.</p> <p>which brings me back to the Voigtlander 20mm. i just re-looked at the photozone <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/504-voigtlander20f35eosff">review</a> for it, and it would make an ideal travel lens for a full frame kit. while not optically-perfect (few pancake lenses are), it's the tiniest wide lens you can get for FX and acceptably sharp in the center. and weighs just 205g. a 20/35/85 (or 105) kit would work well, i think.</p> <p>btw, my travel kit is 2x Fuji XE1, 18-55/2.8-4 OIS, 14/2.8, 35/1.4, 27/2.8 pancake, 60/2.4 macro. all of that fits into a lowepro waistpack with room for a travel tripod, flash, sync cord, and other accessories. total weight is probably about 4 lbs. or less. most of the time, i leave the 14 on one body and the 18-55 or the 60 on the other, with the 35 again being the least-used lens. it's sooooo much lighter than my nikon kit, and does much of the same thing. also, i have less apprehension about something happening to one of the bodies than i do with the nikon full-frame which is my "working" camera. maybe there's no time for Gup to get into a second system, but i can say from my experience doing that eased my aching back considerably.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I don't think a 50 and an 85 offers much versatility, though.</p> </blockquote> <p>i would agree, although a 35 and a 85 is a different story. the Sigma 35 is indeed a physically-large lens for that focal length, but it produces great results. it would be difficult for me to leave it out of the bag, but lighter means lighter. i dunno, if you are taking the 50 for sure, i would consider a 24 or 28mm. the AF-D versions arent the sharpest at open apertures, but they are fairly compact. you could also look into the Cosina Voigtlander 20/3.5. manual focus-only but gets good reviews. a 50 by itself would be fairly purist, but i know for me when i travel, i'd want something wider. Sounds like an amazing trip though, good luck!</p>

<blockquote> <p> I decided to have a proper look into the mirrorless category, most specifically the Fuji X-T1.</p> </blockquote> <p>unless money is burning a hole in your pocket, i would <strong>not</strong> get an XT1 right now. that's for a few reasons: 1) the XPro2 just came out and is Fuji's best body to-date, with an updated 24mp sensor and AF module. that means that 2) an XT2 isnt far behind. it might make sense to wait for the XT2 to be released with the higher-resolution sensor, which should 3) also cause XT1 prices to fall. The camera will be the same whether you pay a few hundred dollars more for it or not.<br> <br> Choosing between a D7200 and one of the Fuji bodies is a little bit more difficult. D7200+ 16-80 is a pretty competent basic kit. However Fuji has a better line of APS-C lenses overall, and specifically has both wide-angle and fast primes in focal lengths Nikon has neglected, as well as a 50-140/2.8. So from a long-term perspective, if you envision yourself getting deep into lenses, the Fujis warrant a strong look. OTOH, if you think you might just get 1-2 lenses and not go any further, the Nikon kit should be sufficient.</p> <blockquote> <p>why the 16-80? Isn't that 2.8 - 4? Why not get a Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. I did. I don't miss the other 30mm. </p> </blockquote> <p>in my experience, and i've owned both the Tammy and Sigma lenses, the 17-50's are just a little short both for walkaround use and for portraits. constant 2.8 is nice to have, but if you supplement that with a fast prime or two, it becomes fairly superfluous. if a 17-50 is your only lens, you will definitely have instances where you miss that reach on the long end, IMHO. i also have a Sigma 50-150 i pair with the 17-50, but there are times when i would like to just take 1 lens.</p>

<p>Andrew, i think you've articulated a strong rationale for getting the 24-70. since you are shooting portraits on a full-frame body, i would consider adding an 85mm lens down the line.</p> <blockquote> <p>someone who takes a lot of portraits and is always on the hunt for more DOF</p> </blockquote> <p>technically, you meant to say 'less DoF', right? i like zooms for the convenience, and a 24-70 should be a go-to for every shooter's bag if you're doing paid work, but none of the 24-70 zooms really have great bokeh, though they will separate backgrounds at wide apertures. if you really want shallow DoF, go with a 1.8 or 1.4 lens. i have the Nikon 24-70, but for portrait work i tend to use a 35/1.4 and an 85/1.4.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The OP is searching for a lighter kit relative to a Nikon kit of the same capability. If being light were the only criteria, why not a cell phone?</p> </blockquote> <p>what the OP actually said was, help him choose between mirrorless systems, not post a picture of your fully loaded backpack.</p> <blockquote> <p>and the Nikon costs more.</p> </blockquote> <p>let's just fact-check that, shall we? oh lookee here. actually, nope, sorry, you're wrong, according to <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00005LEOR/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=all">Amazon</a>.</p> <blockquote> <p>It is sharper in the corners than a Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 in the center,</p> </blockquote> <p>wrong again. <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/809-nikonafs287028fx?start=1">according to photozone</a>, the 28-70 scores 3936 lines of resolution at 5.6 in the corners on a D3x. furthermore, the Nikon's corners are actually pretty good, topping 3000 lines of resolution even at 70mm. </p> <p>also, it's disingenuous to use as a reference a lens which is no longer in production and has been updated twice--twice!-- as your point of comparison for Nikonia. that's daft. you might as well compare an <a href="http://www.kurtmunger.com/minolta_af_28_70mm_f_2_8_g_reviewid252.html">old Minolta zoom from the 90s</a>.</p> <p>Look, Edward, this is silly. There's no need to exaggerate or invent falsehoods to make a point. A case can easily be made for Sony on its own merits without distorting the truth or disparaging other manufacturer's products. Does the thought that someone might go with a Fuji or Olympus system instead of Sony because they are lighter/smaller and yet capable of great image quality and performance really cause you such consternation?</p>

<blockquote> <p>Photozone has not reviewed the new 24-70/2.8. You refer to a review of the f/4 Zeiss version.</p> </blockquote> <p>oops, my bad. but that kind of proves my point that the lack of credible tests/reviews makes it pure hyperbole to proclaim it "superior" to Canikon's offerings at this early juncture. i guess we can overlook your lack of a response to my pointing out you have no way of knowing if the just-announced 18/2 is "just as good" as Leica glass, but , let's just remind folks what you said about the CZ 24-70/4:</p> <blockquote> <p>"The older 24-70/4 is often maligned, but it is an <em>excellent</em> lens except in comparison with other Sony lenses, a little soft in the corners at 24 mm."</p> </blockquote> <p>now here's what photozone said: </p> <blockquote> <p>The Carl Zeiss Vario Tessar T* FE 24-70mm f/4 OSS ZA didn't really convince us completely - not at this price point for sure. While it is a joy to use the lens thanks to its high quality finish and super smooth controls, <em>the optical characteristics aren't quite as impressive.</em> ...The corners are generally soft at 24mm and it's not all that hot at 70mm @ f/4 either - even with activated (lossy) distortion correction... another downside is the quite rough bokeh. Combined with the high price point, this offering leaves a couple of question marks.</p> </blockquote> <p>Hmm, that doesnt sound too "excellent" to me. Was photozone wrong to give it 2.5 stars out of 5, or is Edward simply exaggerating out of Sony-love? woof woof.</p> <blockquote> <p>Sony vs Zeiss for FE lenses is a non-issue. </p> </blockquote> <p>According to you. However, when you have to mention expensive 3rd party lenses ahead of OEM lenses, it's an indication of <em>something</em>. Zeiss also makes lenses in Nikon mount, so what?<br> <br> im not really sure, either, why you decided to show us the contents of your "working bag" in a thread about going light while travelling.</p> <blockquote> <p>I can always choose to carry less.</p> </blockquote> <p>The whole point about going light while travelling is... wait for it... going light. That means bringing less gear in the first place, and using what you have. this point seemed pretty obvious to me, i must say. Apparently, it wasn't obvious to everyone. That said, i'm sure one could assemble a light Sony kit, just as one could assemble a light Fuji or Olympus kit. But, a 20-lb. pack on your shoulders does not a light kit make.</p>