eric_arnold

<p>hi karen,<br> i have a d300s w/ tokina 12-24/4, sigma 17-50/2.8 OS, nikon 35/1.8G, tokina 35/2.8 macro, and sigma 50-150/2.8. if you are using an 18-70 as your main lens, i would def. upgrade that to something faster as a first step.</p> <p>you say: </p> <blockquote> <p>I need a good all rounder lens that can be used for event photography and things like interiors and maybe landscape and portrait.</p> </blockquote> <p>i would go for the sigma 17-50 OS over the nikon 17-55. image quality is comparable, with perhaps a slight edge to the nikon wide open and in the corners (which wont matter unless you're shooting landscapes at large apertures), but i've shot PJ and events with the sigma for four years and it hasn't missed a beat. it has an advantage over the nikon in that it's stabilized, which helps in low-light photos of still subjects, and more compact. it's also about 1/3rd the price, although you can get a used 17-55 for around $800.</p> <p>that said, if i was buying now, i would go for the sigma 18-35/1.8 zoom, which appears to be the sharpest DX zoom around and also gives you shallower DoF and helps mitigate the d300's high-ISO limitations.</p> <p>while the 17-55 has an impressive build, it's not optically-superior enough to justify its higher price over the sigma 17-50, which is fast enough in focusing on a d300 with its HSM motor to handle the pace of event shooting. the 18-35 has better IQ than any lens in its class for nikon, reputedly, and can do things no other DX zoom lens can do with that 1.8 aperture. </p> <p>the catch there is the limited zoom range on the long end, so this lens may not fit your definition of an all-rounder, although it's arguably more versatile than others in its class, depending on whether you value aperture over zoom range. But then, i find the 17-50 too short sometimes anyway for portraits, and you can get by shooting events with a wide-standard zoom and a tele. the 18-35 paired with an 85 would be an excellent combo IMO; the 85 would act like a 135mm, which is to say a moderate telephoto. if you already have a 50/1.8, the 85 makes a lot of sense.</p> <p>regarding wide-angles: the tokina 11-16 would work for interiors and landscape, but it's a little too wide for "people shots" much of the time. when i shoot people with its 12-24 sister, i try not to go wider than 16mm as bodies and faces can get distorted and usually i'm at 18-20mm and thereabouts. if you're willing to live with its limitations as a specialty lens, the 11-16 has an excellent reputation. however, 12-24, 10-24 or 12-28 is a much more useful range for event shooting in particular, where you will be using the long end as much as the wide end. if you need to use an UWA as a primary lens for events, you want a wider zoom range. if you're using as a secondary or tertiary lens for those applications, the 11-16 is a good choice. it also goes to 2.8, which makes it good for interiors.</p> <p>with a $2k budget, you should be able to get an 18-35/1.8 (or 17-50OS, if the 18-35's range is a dealbreaker) + 85/1.8G + 11-16/2.8 and still have some left over for other accessories. that's what i would get, if i were you.</p>

<p>mural in progress.</p><div></div>

<p>actually common characteristics makes evaluating lenses easier. knowing where the sweet spot is on lenses is half the battle.</p>

<p>i'd look out for front focus, back focus, decentering and focus accuracy in general. most common probability is that lens alignment might be off. the problem may not show up at first, especially if you tend to use the lens lightly. you might want to fire off a few fast fps bursts to see if it can withstand repeated mirror slap. would be better to know while it's still under warranty. </p>

<p>love the strap, but eventually, gravity kicks in, especially with longer lenses. if you configure the strap when not in ready position with the locking carabiners so that the camera sits either a little in front or a little behind your hip, it's less likely to twirl around and detach.</p>

<p>in practical terms, what this all means is there is no real advantage to one format over the other, except maybe in high-ISO performance, in which FX clearly trumps DX. there are tradeoffs in terms of DoF, pixel density, focal length, etc., and if you are printing extra-large, FX also has an advantage. but at this point, i wouldnt hesitate to use a 24mp DX sensor for landscape, where typically, one shoots at low ISOs and needs deeper depth of field. DX is also advantageous for wildlife and use with longer lenses due to the 1.5x crop factor. FX, OTOH, is useful if you want to use certain lenses at their native length or in applications where shallow DoF is desired. but even this can be mitigated to some degree, depending on what lenses are used -- an f/1.8 lens on DX should give about the same DoF as a 2.8 lens on FX. i have a sneaky suspicion that the reason nikon hasnt introduced any fast wide primes for DX is that they'd much prefer it if you bought a more expensive FX body.</p>

<blockquote> <p> there is no one set of lenses that will do the same thing on a D800 that they do on a D7100. You will need at least a wide zoom for the D7100 and a 50% longer lens for the D800. </p> </blockquote> <p>Kent is right on the money with this. it's simply a hassle to use both DX and FX formats, because it involves compromises with lenses. IMO it's not really worth it to use DX lenses on FX bodies for the reasons Andrew mentioned. where you really feel it is in wide-angle; the 18-35 that Shun mentioned is an ultrawide on FX and a moderate standard zoom on DX. On the other hand, using crop sensor cameras with telephoto lenses does give you more reach, which may save you money, if you factor in the cost of 300mm and longer lenses. there are some focal lengths which work well on both formats: a 70-300 VR on DX gives you 450mm @ 5.6, which is pretty good; an 80-400 gives you 600mm @5.6, which is even better. a 24-70 or 24-85 is a standard zoom on FX but extends into the portrait range on DX, although you lose the wide end. if you go that route, which makes the most sense if you want to use longer lenses, you do have to be fairly careful with your lens selection. when i went FX, i had to get new zoom lenses in every category: UWA, standard zoom, telephoto. getting rid of my DX lenses wasn't an option for me, because i needed to have the basics covered, although i have only bought 1 new DX lens since then.<br> <br> another option is to get a d600 as backup. they're down to about $1400 new, which is only a few hundred dollars less than a d7100. if you're not shooting sports or wildlife, then it might make more sense for you to have an all-FX system. one thing to keep in mind, however, is that dedicated DX lenses tend to be less expensive and lighter than their FX counterparts, though this depends on the lens specification somewhat. <br> <br> finally, i have to ask the question of whether you need to go FX at all. obviously the d800 has superior resolution, but 2 x d7100 is nothing to scoff at and will free up more budget for lenses. if i had to choose between an expensive camera with an average to mediocre lens and a modesty-priced camera with an excellent lens, i would probably opt for the latter, especially because that expensive body will begin to depreciate the minute you take it out of the box, while lenses depreciate far less.</p>

<p>if you are only planning on getting the kit lens and a telephoto zoom, i'd probably just get the Sony then. the larger sensor will do a bit better in low-light situations. you also have a bit more room for cropping with the a6k's 24mp. it also gives you a little more latitude if you decide to print big. you get stabilization with the kit lens and the 55-210 is also stabilized. however, if you decide down the line you want to add more lenses, the Oly lineup is more robust and hi-end-oriented than Sony's current offerings.</p>

<p>nice work with the RX100, Louis!</p><div></div>

<p> i'd like to suggest that maybe you're looking at this backwards -- instead of choosing a camera/system based on bodies, think about what lenses you'd want to use, and then choose the body based on that. there are inherent compromises with every mirrorless camera, so it's really just a matter of what you can live with.</p> <p>IMO the Fuji X-cameras are all pretty good and a big plus is they all can use the same lenses -- which are really the main draw here. even the Zeiss Touts aren't much better if at all than the Fuji OEM lenses. if you shot portraits at 55mm with film, then the Fuji 35/1.4 would be an excellent choice if you like shallow DoF-style portraits. and the 18-55 zoom is probably the best "kit lens" offered by any manufacturer, IQ-wise, and is good enough for probably 80% of typical shooting (although the primes are so enjoyable aesthetically, my 18-55 doesnt see nearly enough stick time). the stabilization is a big plus when shooting with a smallish camera and the metal build just gives it a solid feel. at current prices, the XE1 w/ 18-55 is a serious deal. at the long end, it's still f/4, which is pretty good.</p> <p>on the m4/3 side of things, you'd probably be looking at the <a href="http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/02/24/quick-comparison-olympus-25-1-8-vs-panasonic-25-1-4/">Panaleica 25/1.4 or the Oly 25/1.8</a>. the Oly is much smaller but on m4/3, you probably need every bit of aperture speed you can get to balance the smaller sensor. the built-in stabilization is a nice feature but they can be pricier than larger-sensor cameras. </p> <p>in Sony e-mount, you'd probably be looking at the 35/1.8 OSS or the 18-55 OSS or 16-50 zooms. the 35 got a good <a href="http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/849-sony35f18nex?start=2">photozone review</a>, but neither of the zooms fared well.</p> <p>meanwhile, i'm having lots of fun using the XE1, of which i recently bought a second body so i could have a 2-camera setup without needing to change lenses. the body is very compact and highly configurable; with the 27mm prime, it has about the same footprint as the x100, which is to say svelte and inobtrusive -- a go-to lens for street photography. with the 35 or 18-55, it's not exactly pocketable, but the IQ is equal or better to crop sensor DSLR output IMO, and both those lenses are fantastic. the 60/2.4 is also surprisingly versatile, being able to handle pseudo-macro at 1:2 and handheld portraits. i've also used it as a short tele for landscape; it may be the sharpest of all the Fuji X-lenses to date. the downside to the XE1 is, it sometimes just misses focus altogether, the EVF is small, and the LCD is a wash in bright sunlight. But the more i use it, the more i like it, and i'm learning to find workarounds for most of its quirks. the IQ from such a small package continues to amaze. if you go that route, i highly recommend the hotshoe-mounted thumbgrip, which really improves the handling.</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>Mr. Arnold, a UWA? Could you elaborate? I heartily agree with your statement that another super zoom isn't going to be of any benefit to my learning curve -- it does make for lazy photography. I love the 35/1.8, but is there any sense in a 50/1.8G? I can see where the 85/1.8G would give a different perspective.</p> </blockquote> <p>an UWA is an "ultra wide angle." something which goes wider than 16 or 18mm on DX. it gives you a different perspective, quite literally, and yes there is a learning curve. i bought the tokina 12-24 in 2007 as my first third-party lens and have loved shooting wide ever since. i highly recommend that lens for its price/performance ratio and versatile range, even though there are better UWAs for DX, like the limited-range, optically-excellent Tokina 11-16. Still, the original Tokina 12-24 holds its own. While venerable--it's been updated twice--at f/8 its super-contrasty and quite sharp. i've shot landscape, urban landscape, street photography, environmental portraits, outdoor festivals, you name it, with that lens. it's served up some killer shots, some of which i've printed at 20x30. and at the current price of $400 new, which is less than i paid 7 years ago, it's a steal of a deal.<br /> <br /> An UWA tends to complement a long zoom or a telephoto prime and is a must for a landscaper photographer's kit. with the possible exception of a macro lens, no other lens can change the way you approach photography as much as an UWA, so learning how to use one can be an inspired--and fun--experience.</p> <p>as far as a 50mm goes, let me clarify that i have two 50mm primes, and do use my 50/1.4 often on my FX body, but i dont really like that focal length (75mm equiv.) on DX, although i dont turn my nose down at <em>any</em> fast lens. some people like 50 on DX for portraits; for me, it's a little short. i prefer a f/1.4 in 50mm, but the Nikon 50/1.8G is well-regarded and fairly cheap, and it does give you a bit more reach than a 35. however, a 35/85 combo makes much more sense, IMO. in fact, a 10-20 or 12-24 UWA + 35/1.8 + 85/1.8 is a quite versatile DX kit, maybe all you really need to go alongside your superzoom.<br /> <br /> basically, how i think when considering a new lens is,</p> <ul> <li>what will it allow me to do that i can't do now?</li> <li>how will it complement my current kit?</li> </ul> <p>if you're ok with sticking to your superzoom as an all-in-one, and don't need a 2.8 zoom for events, then primes and/or UWAs will add new capabilities to your repertoire while complementing your current kit. whereas, the 16-85 duplicates the 18-200's range so you'd have considerable overlap, a bit better IQ, but the same slowish aperture. in terms of expanding your photographic envelope, here's what i'd consider, in this order:</p> <ul> <li>an UWA. going wide can give an exaggerated perspective, or frame a scene with "big picture" context you can't get from a narrower lens. just be careful not to place people close to the edges if you're shooting wider than 20mm (on DX).</li> <li>a fast prime/portrait lens. besides the 85 i mentioned, which is a long tele on DX, there is an affordable classic portrait lens, the Voigtlander 58/1.4, which corresponds to an 85 in full-frame. the catch is it's manual focus, but that may be ok for portrait sessions and/or zone-focus street shooting.</li> <li>a macro lens. macro is a whole 'nother world, and being able to go to 1:1 can change the way you, and others, look at your photography.</li> </ul> <p>from my own experience, i can tell you that shooting with an UWA, an UWA and a prime, or two primes, can get you out of the "convenience zoom rut," which doesnt lend itself to pushing things forward or inspired creative learning. as much as we sometimes want to get everything in one package, sometimes limiting oneself can be liberating in a way we can't comprehend until we do it.</p>

<p>did you jump ship from fuji before the firmware updates? because they improved the speed of the xp1 and xe1 considerably, and the xe2 and xt1 are even faster in terms of AF. for portraits, the xe1 with the 60/2.4 has amazing IQ and a small form factor. but just about any fuji body with that lens will do the same thing.</p> <p>just to be clear, what do you mean by portraits? the x100 has a 35mm equiv lens, great camera but i consider it more of a "candid" shooter than a "portrait" shooter. it does one thing better than any other camera i've used, namely fill flash in direct sunlight, thanks to the leaf shutter and 1/2000 xsync speed. the x100s does the same thing with faster AF, better hi-ISO, and a slightly worse sensor for IQ, at a higher cost. but for price performance ratio, it's hard to beat the original x100 or xe1 right now.</p> <p>the 60mm fuji lens, which is more of a traditional portrait lens, is slower to focus than the newer 56/1.2, but it's also quite smaller and less pricey. you can do some high-quality stuff with it without packing a lot of gear. the fuji 35/1.4 can also work as a portrait lens, especially if you are into blurred backgrounds. </p> <p>the RX100 is a good pocket camera, with a well-documented list of pros and cons, but it's slowish on the long end and won't give you the same shallow DoF as the Fujis (or a Sony A7, obvi). if you plan on printing above 8x10 or shooting above ISO 800, i would go with the larger sensor cameras.</p>

<p>a used d90 would probably do everything the OP wants and is less expensive than a d7xxx body.</p>

<p>i'd think about a Sony RX100 or the G1x. full-featured all-in-one compacts make a lot of sense for hiking or anything where weight is as important a concern as image quality. Sony seems to have eked more goodness out of the 1" sensor than Nikon 1, especially at high-ISO. the G1x mkII's faster lens is a lot more appealing than its predecessor, but neither has great autofucus and the mk1 is considerably less expensive.</p>

<blockquote> <p> If 10MP 18-200mm images were and are fine so far (in print/on screen) then the extra resolution of the D7100 simply isn't that vital.</p> </blockquote> <p>easy for you to say. but the OP literally doesn't know what he's missing, since he can't see the difference between bodies. and if it didn't matter anyway, then why upgrade the body at all? too late, because he already has a d7100. so why not get the most out of those 24 megapixels?<br> </p> <blockquote> <p>If the 18-200 works fine enough, should you really spend money on a replacement? It's about spending money wisely, in the end.</p> </blockquote> <p>i'm not sure a replacement superzoom is the answer. but a lens which can fully utilize the resolving power of the d7100 sensor? sounds like a worthwhile investment to me, if the net result is better pictures.</p> <blockquote> <p>The choice then becomes between aperture and somewhat limited zoomrange (17-50) versus the bit more convenience and variable apertures (16-85/18-140).</p> </blockquote> <p>not necessarily. a couple more primes -- say, 50/1.8G and 85/1.8G -- could complement the 18-200 (and 35/1.8) and eke out top performance from the d7100, especially in low light. so that's also a viable option. the 16-85 has a great range, but if it were an f/4 lens it would be a lot easier to recommend. i've owned both the sigma and tamron 17-50s, but if it were me, today i'd take a hard look at the 18-35/1.8 sigma zoom, which solves the DX dilemma of no truly fast W/A primes, although its zoom range is even more limited and inconvenient.<br> <br> personally, i don't see a whole lot of point of continuing to use an 18-200 on a 24mp sensor; if image quality doesn't matter, why not use a bridge camera or a high-end compact like the RX100? why carry a DSLR at all if you're not going to derive maximum benefit from it? it's not like they're light to carry.<br> <br> back to the prime argument: if the OP is hampered by lack of experience (and confidence in his abilities), continued use of a superzoom for its convenience is probably just going to encourage lazy photographs, while primes encourage more careful framing and composition -- which can be the difference between a throwaway snapshot and a printable pic. a photographer without discipline isn't going to get any better, no matter what gear they use. and with relatively inexpensive buy-ins, the f/1.8 G series is probably the best thing Nikon DX has going for it in terms of lenses. i would also consider an UWA, which can literally widen one's perspective. </p>

<p>red dress</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>why spend money to get a lens that does pretty much the same thing</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> oh, i dont know, maybe because with an 18-200 you're not going to be reaching the resolution potential of the d7100 sensor? with that combo, the camera far outresolves the lens, which should be clear from using the 35 prime lens. i realize wouter is playing devil's advocate here, but the 16-85 is a much better match for a 24mp sensor than the 18-200. by the same token, f/22 is going to show diminished sharpness on a d7100, no matter what lens is being used, due to diffraction.</p> <p>if you like the long end of the 18-200 and the convenience, the newish 18-140 has good reviews and seems to work decently with the 24mp sensor, although it's a rule of thumb that the more magnification a superzoom has--18-200 is something like 11x--the more compromises it entails.</p> <p>if it were me, i would definitely upgrade the lens, but if i had to use the 18-200, i would just try to keep it around f/8 for most focal lengths, except below 50mm.</p>

<p>flash and high ISO together can lead to overexposed photos. if you want a higher ISO value while using the pop-up flash, you'll have to turn off auto-ISO.</p>

<p>more mexico photos</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>did you go the Fuji route to reduce the weight of a DSLR</p> </blockquote> <p>well, yes. let me explain: i could have taken my lightest/smallest DSLR (d90) and appropriate lenses, which probably would have been an 12-24 tokina UWA, a 17-50/2.8 standard zoom, and a 70-300 telephoto zoom. however, that presents a problem of lens changing, which i wanted to avoid at all costs since i was in the desert/ocean, where the chance of dust/sand entering your camera is exponentially higher. that kit is also much heavier than a 2-body Fuji set up with the 18-55 and three-4 primes. so i decided to go with 2 fuji bodies as my main set-up, with the x100 as backup 1 and the J1 as backup 2. i probably didnt need four cameras, but i really wanted to test the systems in the field, especially the 14mm and 60mm Fuji lenses i had recently purchased. i already knew the x100 was a stellar camera, but i also knew I wanted to shoot a lot with the fuji 14mm.<br> <br> what i ended up with was a highly-configurable system: i only took two cameras with me most of the time, in either a messenger bag equipped with padded dividers, or a lowepro waist pack. each can fit two bodies plus additional lenses, filters, flash, etc. i would choose lenses and other gear based on situation: for a beach walk in eastcape, i would just take two lenses in the lowepro. for a street festival in san jose's zocalo, i brought out the full set up with the messenger bag, which also held an audio recorder, flash, sync cable, etc. the messenger bag also converts from a backback to a single shoulder strap, so that was versatile too. sometimes i had one camera deployed with a black rapid-type shoulder sling; other times i would leave the sling off and use hand straps, and just pull the cameras out of my bag when i needed them. there were also times when i only took the x100, in a small third bag. other times, the x100 and the J1 stayed in the room. when most of my equipment was packed in suitcases, as on the desert drive to and from la paz, i was still able to get shots with the x100 and J1 from the car. the x100 was also the go-to cam for quick snaps and selfies.<br> <br> it was worth it to me because i was able to test a bunch of gear in different field conditions, but i don't necessarily recommend lugging all that stuff--i probably could have gotten by with a more minimal kit -- just the x100, or the x100 and one of the xe1's with 1-2 lenses. however, the 2 body setup was still quite minimal in practice, and i appreciated the luxury of having several high-quality lenses at my disposal, depending on the situation, while still not overtaxing myself in terms of weight. that made it easy for impromptu portrait shoots with the 35/1.4, using boutique hotels as background, for instance. the fuji lenses did take up room in a bag, but they were so light compared to a DSLR and comparable lenses that transporting them wasn't a big issue at all. even the J1 w/ 30-110 is much lighter than my tamron 70-300 VR alone.</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>Larger sensors loose their advantage when used at high ISO because they open the way for smaller sensors to obtain the same results at lower ISO using faster lenses. The lack of availability of those faster lenses or their price can be deemed disadvantages of the smaller sensor system (and advantages of the larger sensor one), but this is quite a different point from saying that large sensors have an advantage at high ISO - they don't have any advantage if they only match results from smaller sensors.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> huh? what? this argument seems to contradict the laws of physics. larger sensors clearly have an advantage in terms of noise over smaller sensors. there is no way an m4/3 camera can compete with a full frame sensor in the high-ISO category, for example. the second part of this argument is equally erroneous and doesnt seem to make any factual sense whatsoever. you posit that larger sensors <em>"open the way for smaller sensors to obtain the same results at lower ISO using faster lenses"</em> .... uh, not really. it is true you can use faster lenses on small sensor cameras and avoid raising ISO past an unacceptable noise threshold, but it's equally true that you can also use fast lenses on large sensor cameras and get shots which would have been impossible with small sensor cameras and/or max out shallow depth of field in a way smaller sensor cameras can't do. pointing to the availability of fast lenses for m4/3 as an equalizer for the DoF and ISO issues is kind of misleading too, since there are a few ultra-fast f/0.95 lenses available, but not at all focal lengths, and besides being manual-focus, they're pretty pricey as well. it's not very realistic for someone who spent $300 or $350 (or less) on a older-model m4/3 kit to plunk down $1000 for a Nokton 25mm, especially when you can get equivalent focal length fast primes for DSLRs for a fraction of that cost.<br> <br> unfortunately, Larentiu, the facts are never going to fit neatly into your argument as stated. in fact, the facts live outside of your argument as you are simply incorrect on every point you were attempting to make there. it's one thing to have a personal preference, and that's okay, but try not to let that get in the way of making an objective, rational case.<br> <br> what is true, however, is this: mirrorless camera systems are much smaller and lighter than DSLRs and can do _most_ of what DSLRs do. the high-end bodies are very impressive, and there are loads of lens options. in some cases, you can't see the difference, depending on application and final outcome, but in others, it's apparent (cough cough continuous-AF shooting mode cough cough). i dont really see mirrorless systems currently as a replacement for DSLRs, but more like an alternative in situations where you want to go light and/or don't need pro-level functionality -- which essentially means AF performance, mostly, and a few other things.</p> <p> </p>

<p>"have you tried the Diablo salsa,"? the restaurant owner said. </p><div></div>

<p>thanks louis; that's actually my girlfriend anya dancing flamenco there. she got invited to dance for javvy, the guitarist, who has turned to flamenco after playing in metal and prog-rock bands. he did an amazing cover of "Bohemian Rhapsody" during his set. </p><div></div>

<p>as luck would have it, there was a music festival while we were there... </p><div></div>

<p>the sunsets were pretty chill... </p><div></div>