eric_arnold

<p>i find 50mm on DX a little short for portraits. i would consider the Tamron 60/2 macro or the Cosina Voigtlander 58/1.4 as dedicated portrait lenses. 85 could work, but is a bit longish on DX. One of the best portrait lenses for DX is the non-OS Sigma 50-150/2.8, worth picking up if you can find a used copy. that lens is great for event shooting as well. </p>

<blockquote> <p> The bulk of my post was to reinforce the comparison between Sony, Leica, and the original Nikons, which shows, in effect, how we are returning to our origins. </p> </blockquote> <p>are we? i dont know about that. certainly the retro trend has been in effect since the X100 and digital PEN models landed, but it would be difficult to mistake the Sony bodies as anything other than the latest technology in a compact package. The Nikon Df was supposed to be a return to the FM3A days, but the Leica SL and some of the recent Panasonics have gone away from the smaller ethos. Lenses are creeping up in size, too. I think Don's point is well-taken, that the current market is saturated with choices for just about anyone. </p>

<p>even if we swap the new D5 for the D2h, that comparison with the A7RII seems highly inequivalent. Im not sure who would consider the two bodies equivalent in terms of features and performance, since the D5 is a $6500 sports camera, and the Sony is a $3000 landscape/portrait camera. A more apt comparison would be the D810, but that body doesnt have an integrated vertical grip. There are some size/weight savings vs. Nikon's FF line, but i dont think they need to be exaggerated by making misleading comparisons. </p>

<blockquote> <p>If you compare the flagship Nikon DSLRs with the top-of-the-line Sony A7Rii (or A7ii), there us a substantial difference in size and weight<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>the comment was about full frame lenses, not bodies. in any event a D2H isn't a full-frame camera, so i'm not sure why we need a picture of it. and the lenses <em>are</em> similarly-sized, anyway. what happens when we compare a Leica SL + 24-90 to a Nikon d600 +24-85? or a Sony 70-200/2.8 GM with a Canon 70-200/2.8 USM?</p>

<p>i have the Tamron 70-300, its 5.6 at max aperture. so is the 80-400. if you need more light, you need a larger aperture. i use the Nikon 70-200/2.8, so i can't comment on the Tamron version, other than try before you buy and make sure the AF speed is fast enough for your needs. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Thom Hogan has a recent article outlining what he believes to be the strategies and goals of the major camera companies.</p> </blockquote> <p>every now and then, Thom delivers a spot-on analysis. this is one of those articles. Kinda feel sorry for Pentax here (<em>"</em><em>Pentax makes some fine products with unique features. But their iteration tends to be just a step slow, so they often end up being the last DSLR maker to achieve something (e.g. high pixel counts), and in terms of market share, they’re essentially ignorable. Meanwhile, they’re a step behind on some basics, such as autofocus performance. That doesn’t make their products bad, it just makes them tough sells in a declining market.</em> "), but i can't disagree, despite all the fanboi chattering about the K-1. <br> <br> As far as Nikon jumping into mirrorless with two new cameras with new lens mounts this year, he doesn't see that, and neither do i. it could happen, i suppose, but recent history (Coolpix A, Nikon 1, Df) suggests it probably wont, at least not anytime soon. It makes much more sense for Canon to do that, given their market position and resources. i'll bet Nikon will be closely watching, because the trick for the Big Two, is how do you introduce new product lines without cannibalizing existing sales in an overall-declining market? I'm not sure how Nikon could drop not one but two new mirrorless lines without eating away at their DSLR market share, which is still considerable, if not robust. It would make more sense for them to strongly push their 1" sensor DL lines as competitors to the other 1" sensor offerings from Panasonic, Sony and Canon, and to offer some new DX lenses specced to match the D500. We might see a D820 or D900 as well, come Photokina time </p>

<blockquote> <p> Cuba is in my bucket list. I need to get there soon. When I do make it to Cuba, I will likely take two SLR's with a boat load of film and a good point and shoot.</p> </blockquote> <p>Cuba is extremely photogenic, so i would recommend doing this sooner than later. i kind of want to say it doesnt matter what camera you bring there, but upon further reflection, a G15 for me might be a bit inadequate because you will return with some files you will want to print large. that camera is perfect for travel, though -- its just that the sensor will limit results. having been there and done that, if i went again, i would take the x100 for candids, and maybe an APS-C body with a few lightish lenses at differing lengths. a case could easily be made for a high-rez FF body, though, but loading up on lenses gets heavy and wouldnt be all that optimal unless you were specifically making it a landscape photography trip. or Cuban jazz trip. Habana in and of itself is fantastic for street photography, but you actually dont need a lot of gear while doing it, just an agile shutter button finger, and a sense of composition.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Changing lenses while hiking is annoying, in particular if you also need to change filters (a seperate filter set for every lens is costly). If you want to make it back down the mountain before the final cable car or boat crossing, you can't lose time with too many lens or filter changes. Therefore, I am considering a 24-85mm f3.5-4.5</p> </blockquote> <p>you dont say what specific lenses you are using, so difficult to make a recommendation there, based on that. but here's the thing: if 70% of your preferred shots are between 20-50mm, then most of your shooting parameters would be covered by a standard zoom. i would think you could get there with just two lenses: an UWA zoom and a standard zoom. nikon 16-35 VR + tamron 28-75/2.8 might be all the kit you'd need. the tamron is sharper than the nikon 24-85 and a very light lens for its spec. you're a little limited in terms of being able to reduce weight by using a FF camera -- a Fuji body with a 14/2.8 + 18-55 would get you there in IQ and shave considerable weight -- but i can totally respect wanting to stay with the D700, even though its not the lightest body out there. <br> <br> im not especially knocking the nikon 24-85, but it's an unexciting lens on paper. and not quite ultrawide. the problem with UWA primes is that if you leave them on the body, you have to swap lenses every time you want more reach. That can work if you're dialed in to the 20mm focal length, but UWA zooms are a bit more practical in real-world use. so the 16-35 might be a good choice for you, especially since it can take filters. you could also consider getting a Nikon 28-200 as a lightweight zoom option. </p>

<p>i have the older Sigma 50/1.4 HSM, which has been replaced by the Art lens. it's very sharp in the center and does produce great bokeh. but unless you're a bokeh fanatic, i wouldnt swap the Nikon 1.8G for it. i also dont think the Nikon 1.4 is worth switching for. if you're a fanatic about 50mm, the clear choices are the Sigma Art or the Otus. But the Nikon 50/1.8G appears to be "good enough." ive always been curious about the Voigtlander 58/1.4; the Nikon version seems a bit overpriced for what it does. </p>

<blockquote> <p> I think it comes down to style and confidence. When I am out and about shooting, I am very obvious. All my DSLR's have grips on them and yes, there is no hiding those big lenses. When people see me, there is no doubt I am out making pictures. I find this to be advantages. I use wide to normal lenses and try to engage when I can. I find that when I take a candid of someone, most don't even notice, even with that big ole DSLR. This is not only L.A. but various parts of the U.S. and many countries I have visited. No need to be sneaky. But this comes down to style and mannerisms.</p> </blockquote> <p>this is obviously a very subjective opinion, and not even close to typical among street shooters, who have been known to black out all logos on their gear. FWIW, i rarely shoot street with anything longer than a fast prime; the zooms mostly stay at home. i do sometimes shoot in sketchy areas with 5 or 6 thousand dollars worth of gear, but i use a nondescript domke bag which doesnt scream, expensive gear inside! If i am shooting in foreign countries, i dont want to be obvious, except in tourist-y areas where there are a bunch of people shooting things. i tend to keep the camera in a waistpack instead of around my neck, or use a blackrapid-type strap which can be concealed under a jacket. i can actually fit two fuji bodies and several primes in a waistpack and have wide-angle to telephoto capacity in a much smaller-than-dslr setup. it's a great setup for travel or street/urban landscape. when i shot in havana viejo in cuba i just had a d300 and one lens, a 12-24/4, in a waistpack. it's not so much about needing to be sneaky as it is not wanting to get hassled by locals. i know how to be "camera dude," but i dont always want to play that role. but YMMV.</p>

<blockquote> <p>We need to keep in mind that it isn't like the D4, D810, D750, and D7200 ... all of a sudden have terrible AF. Those cameras have very good AF, probably far more than capable than what is usually needed for "street photography." </p> </blockquote> <p>i wasnt suggesting that those cameras now suck because a new body is out. what i am saying is that if your style of street is more photojournalistic, i.e., event reportage of fast-moving situations, then you would benefit from the improvements in AF speed and acquisition. of course not everyone shoots street the same way, but that is a point i already made. as is the point that some people dont even need AF to shoot street. we've discussed this a lot on the street/documentary forum, but there is also a difference between passive street photography and engaged SP. passive is when you shoot from a distance and dont really engage with your subjects. engaged might entail having a conversation with the subject before shooting a photo. in the latter instance, AF speed is completely irrelevant. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I would imagine that the D500 will function just fine for street photography, but given the two choices, I would opt for the D750 for that type of work.</p> </blockquote> <p>There isn't just one way to shoot street photography, so this is a bit of an apples and oranges discussion. Obviously, if you have a documentary style which prioritizes AF speed, the D500 would be better. OTOH, if you shoot a lot of low-light/high ISO stuff, the D750 would be better. But we are talking about two immensely-capable cameras which could each handle most street applications with ease. OTOH if you are a zone-focus and f/8 kind of street shooter, you dont need either of these bodies to do that. </p>

<blockquote> <p>That means absolutely nothing to most photographers who can get by extremely well with 3, 4 or 5 well chosen focal lengths. Add to the mostly very good Sony optics those made by Zeiss for Sony and I don't think too many serious photographers will complain.</p> </blockquote> <p>i think you're kind of missing the point. Sony being untethered to a legacy mount (other than the old Minolta A) means they can design new mounts like E and FE. The same goes for Fuji. Conversely, Nikon and Canon dont quite have the same leeway. They've been pretty reluctant to dip their feet in the mirrorless waters, and both the EOS-M and Nikon 1 lines have been underwhelming, possibly for this reason. The other thing is that if you've spent 20 or 30 years investing in lenses, switching systems may not be something you really want to do. If an adaptor develops which allows full functionality, including AF, with Nikon lenses on Sony A7-series bodies, then you could just buy a new body without having to replace all your lenses -- which may not be completely possible, in the case of exotics, tilt/shift, and the like. </p> <blockquote> <p> It is amusing to hear from DSLR devotees that mirrorless cameras MUST be small to be of value</p> </blockquote> <p>im not sure anyone's actually saying this, and i also think rendering this statement as an absolute also misses the point. <em>Value</em> is a pretty subjective quality, but there is no denying that, at least initially, mirrorless was marketed as a smaller, lighter alternative to DSLRs. That's certainly the approach that m4/3 manufacturers have taken (as well as Sony NEX), and its resulted in a mirrorless ethos with varying degrees of success. That's changed a bit over time, as the industry-wide drop in camera volume sales has pushed camera makers to push higher-value products to compensate -- forcing mirrorless to compete directly with DSLRs at various price points.<br> <br> At this point, however, with a range of sensor and body sizes, not all mirrorless cameras fit the small/light ethos, and the physics of designing full frame lenses, as well as telephotos and pro-spec zooms for APS-C mirrorless, means there may not be considerable weight/size savings with some systems. Certainly, the idea of a 5-lb kit with comparable functionality to a 20-lb kit has a lot of appeal, but comparable doesnt mean completely equivalent across the board. There are still things that DSLRs do better than mirrorless bodies, as well as things some mirrorless bodies can do that DSLRs can't. With the latest generation of mirrorless cameras, the gap is closing, but then we haven't seen an end to innovation in DSLRs, either. if you look at the Fuji XPro2 and the Nikon D500, both have comparable price points and high-end features, and a nice selection of available lenses. But if you're choosing based on performance metrics, the D500 is clearly superior for action shooting and AF, while the Fuji might win out on pure image quality, and maybe on haptics as well. There are more lenses available for Nikon mount, but Fuji makes some lenses for APS-C that Nikon doesn't, like the 16/1.4. Ultimately, the plethora of choices is both a good and a bad thing. It's definitely a buyers market right now, but there may be <em>too many</em> choices out there. </p>

<blockquote> <p>what I read, and I don't remember where it was... <br> don't hold your breath because I'm not sure how reliable the info</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> without a link, this is just hearsay of hearsay. i suppose anything's possible, but again, Nikon has not been successful thus far with mirrorless, and would likely take from their own sales if they did launch a FFMILC line. It's also possible that Nikon will reboot the Nikon 1 line as the DL series, with 1" sensors and interchangeable lenses. The reason i am skeptical is because mirrorless bodies dont currently outsell DSLRs. Not being able to use F-mount lenses might make new bodies less attractive to longtime Nikon users, if anything.</p> <blockquote> <p>Isn't that more or less what Sony is doing. </p> </blockquote> <p>Sony's approach has been described as throwing gum on the wall to see what sticks. They have a APS-C and a FF DSLR line, two series built around the 1" sensor, mirrorless APS-C, and FF mirrorless. What they dont really have is 10s of millions of lenses already out there in the wild. </p>

<p>by "evidence," do you mean unconfirmed rumors? a patent is a long way from full production. let's look at what nikon <em>has</em> done in the past year or so:</p> <ul> <li>introduced a prosumer DX body and a pro sports FX body</li> <li>introduced a 1" line of compacts with iterated fixed lenses</li> <li>apparently discontinued the Nikon 1.</li> </ul> <p>Nikon has already whiffed, pretty much, with its two forays into mirrorless--the Nikon 1 ILCs and the Coolpix A. it has just introduced a new line, the DL, based around the 1" sensor, which competes directly with Canon GX__ and Sony RX100. No doubt the company is waiting to see how those high-end compacts do, sales-wise. That said, they could plug up some of the mirrorless leakers by putting out just a few more higher-end DX lenses. As tempting as the XPro2 body is, it's still not as performance-oriented as the D500, and the pricing is comparable. </p> <p>to answer the question, the possibility of a FF mirrorless from nikon in and of itself isn't necessarily exciting. as others pointed out, a new lens mount could undercut both of their established formats (DX and FX), while an FX mirrorless using F-mount wouldn't necessarily shave weight and size. A new mount also doesn't make a whole lot of sense as it would impact F-mount lens sales. A DX mirrorless ILC could be a little smaller than FX, but would undercut their current DX DSLRs. It could be cool to see a modular MILC set-up, or fixed-lens compacts at various focal lengths, but Nikon already tried that with the Coolpix A (which wasnt a terrible camera, just overpriced for what it was). Production costs may eventually make mirrorless ILCs a fair accompli for nikon, but i dont think that will happen until DSLRs lose more market share than they currently have. </p>

<blockquote> <p>hence Thom Hogan's advice just to go for an overkill support solution from the start.</p> </blockquote> <p>i think it's important to contextualize Thom's remarks. He's coming from a place of being a workshop teacher, primarily for landscape and wildlife photographers, who have slightly different needs than someone like the OP, who isnt shooting long lenses, and doesnt need to make archival-quality prints. Thus, a $700 tripod set would be complete overkill, and not what i'd recommend here.</p> <blockquote> <p>Wobbly videos won't look professional</p> </blockquote> <p>This gets right to the crux of the point i was trying to make. It's better to realize this beforehand, rather than after the fact. Throwing an extra $100 at a more capable support system shouldn't completely blow the OP's budget, and could save $$ down the line by not having to repurchase a better tripod after finding out the el cheapo plastico results in the wobblies. Even for indoor exercise videos, i would imagine there would be some repositioning of angles, etc. <br> <br> It's a bit daft to say, "ok, get a tripod that barely works and move it as little as possible, because it may prove to be inadequate if pressed into rigorous duty." That's a bit different than saying, the shooting requirements may not be the most challenging (at first), but get a tripod that will at least handle basic video set-ups and perhaps a bit of transport from location A to location B, which will also hold up to more extensive use if and when that's necessary. There are plenty of inexpensive leg sets which will satisfy these basic requirements, but underspending on a head means you might get something which doesnt really lock securely, and may even break if you try to tighten it to make it more stable. That actually happened to me when i had one of the generic bottom-barrel pods with a plastic pan/tilt head which came with my first DSLR kit. After using it once or twice, i realized it wasnt good enough, and went out and bought a manfrotto 190 and a metal ballhead. If Jeff is serious about making pro-quality videos, he'll probably want something at least one step up from bottom of the line. </p>

<p>So, Correo, you joined Photo.net just today so you could troll-post with a spambait link for a wanna-be review site you may possibly be affiliated with? Not super-ethical. Also, the OP already has two cameras. why would he need a third? </p>

<blockquote> <p>a tripod purchased for the intended video purposes could sit in one place, possibly with the lower leg sections not extended, with any centre column down, without anything hitting it, and without the need to adjust framing significantly - and it only has to hold up to 2MP (HDTV) images. A table would almost suffice (indeed, a "pod" bean-bag on a chair would almost suffice). I'm talking about the best case for a tripod.</p> </blockquote> <p>well, sure, if you're just using a tripod for a static indoor location, you don't need a carbon fiber Gitzo. However, i would advocate for not getting the cheapest possible 'pod, and also upgrading to a decent pan/tilt head if the focus is video, not stills. The thing with the el cheapos is they tend to denigrate each time you use them. It's a bit of an assumption to say that the head will never need to be adjusted for different angles, etc., or that you'll never have to lug it from one location to the next. if you underspend on this, you could easily fall into one of Thom's scenarios, where instead of $40, you're spending closer to $200, because you really needed a $150 leg + head kit, but instead you bought something inadequate, and now you realized you have to spend more to get something which isnt completely mediocre. I'm not going to recommend a specific model/brand, because there are so many at various price ranges, but a good rule of thumb is to figure out what features are the most important for your application, and go for one which has those features. Many of the tripod kits with included heads' weak point is the head itself -- it's rare, for instance, for a kit ballhead to have a separate panning lock. </p>

<p>the X100 is close to the perfect camera for street photography. the original model is still a bit quirky even with the firmware updates, sometimes the OVF works better than the EVF for focus acquisition for some reason, but other than that, it's really a fun camera to use. depending on your perspective, a fixed 35mm is either limiting or liberating. i can see where having a zoom might be nice, but personally i would want something a bit longer than the kit zoom. i also wouldnt want to break in a new body while on the road, but YMMV.</p>

<p>ive had the sigma 17-50 for many years and i concur it is "sharp enough." before that i had the tamron 17-50 which was wicked sharp, better than the 24-70 AF-s @2.8. i never saw the need for the 17-55, but a lot of people really love that lens.</p>

<p>what, exactly, was wrong with the 17-55?</p>

<p>you dont say what lenses you have for the G7, so i'll assume 14-42 kit? personally, i would go with the x100. better lens, faster aperture, 1/2000 X-sync (vs. 1/160), and physical controls. G7 would be a better choice for video, though. </p>

<p>The Milvus is almost equivalent to the Otus, so i wouldnt expect the AF-D Nikkor to quite match its performance. </p>

<p>nice capture, barry. </p>

<blockquote> <p>you could spend $200 on a tripod and you'll end up with something substantially better than the "cheapest possible" advice I suggested. I suspect, while it would be nicer and more robust than my suggestion, <em>it won't actually help you do what you suggested any better, especially with video</em>.</p> </blockquote> <p>i cant see how this could possibly be true. if you've ever actually used an el cheapo plastico pod for video, you know you basically have to fight with it the entire time. the worst part is the head. the legs may hold up if you're not rough on them for a little while, but a cheap pan/tilt head is an aggravating thing, and a cheap ballhead is even worse. they tend to be not very supportive or stable, and subject to a lot of motion vibration. they're good for a monolight or reflector, but i wouldnt recommend on for any serious video work. </p>