eric_arnold

<p>whoops, forgot to attach this pic... </p><div></div>

<p>i ate a LOT of seafood...</p>

<p>on a really hot day, the only thing to do is hit the beach...</p><div></div>

<p>humidity was high as well.</p><div></div>

<p>temperatures ranged from 90 degrees F to about 95-98 F. one night, it may have cooled down to the mid-80s... </p><div></div>

<p>so, just returned from 12 days in baja california sur, took a 100% mirrorless kit -- 2x fuji xe1 w/ 14/35/18-55/60mm lenses, x100, nikon 1 J1 w/ 30-110. did a bit of everything-- street shooting, landscapes, portraits, live performance. didnt miss the size and weight of the DSLRs, but there were times the LCD made it hard to compose in the midday sun. got to really put in some work with the 14 and 60, which are both stellar lenses optically. the 14 is a solid performer with almost zero distortion equally good for street or landscape. the 60 is just super-sharp and works well in conjunction with a w/a as a short tele and portrait lens; in good light, it's actually snappy to focus. didnt use the 35 as much as i thought i would but it hardly took up any weight in the bag. the 18-55's goodness continues to surprise as well, it's a really capable lens and the OIS is invaluable in low-light situations. some of the best shots, however, were with the x100, which does everything except zoom. the J1's best attribute is its fast AF. it didnt pull as much detail out of shots as the fuji's, but it grabbed roadside signs from a moving car with impressive focus acquisition speed. i'm just gonna post a few pics, feel free to ask questions about my set-up or offer comments. </p><div></div>

<p>from my recent trip to mexico. fuji xe1. </p><div></div>

<p>minty low-actuation d800's are now hovering around $2000... the 810 upgrade seems like a minor refresh but should mean prices will fall a bit lower on the 'obsoleted' model. ;)</p>

<p>made it to la paz.</p><div></div>

<p>surprised no one has mentioned the nikon1 AW1. it comes in a kit w/ waterproof housing and has a dedicated strobe avail for it. </p>

<p>baja california sur</p><div></div>

<p>congrts eyal. post some pics pls! just returned from 12 days in baja california,mexico, myself... took an x100, 2xXE1, and Nikon J1. mainly used the XE's but the x100 is "the one" if you can only take one travel camera or want to complement a mini-system. super-inobtrusive and very easy to shoot casually with. it also accepts nikon flashes like the sb-400. was pleasantly surprised to find the X100 worked well w/ the J1 (+30-110) as an ultra-lightweight w/a + tele kit. still wading through pics but i'll try to post some shots taken w/ different cams soon.</p>

<p>yikes, worst nightmare indeed. i have the sigma 17-50 OS for my D300s setup too. i think you'll find the AF a bit faster. the lens is sharp in the center from 2.8, the corners get better after f/4. the sigma is a little more susceptible to flare and contra light since it has a larger front element than the tamron, but otherwise a fine lens. my only real complaint after owning one for 4 years is the zoom ring, which turns Canon-style, and takes a while getting used to for Nikon shooters.</p>

<p>i'm in san jose del cabo right now, actually. no plans to visit CSL. thanks for the advice. </p>

<p>i was gonna say, just get an x100. speaking as a writer and photojournalist myself, it really makes the grade, as david bowie might say. wondering why you would have concerns about x100 IQ if you were considering an RX10 and bought an x20, which both have smaller sensors than the x100.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I think sales of mirrorless cameras would have to stop tanking in North America before Nikon (or Canon) would give serious thought to this. This is a nasty little fact that often gets lost amongst all of the mirrorless buzz from an enthusiastic fan base and the industry itself. It's hard to call a nearly 50% drop in sales a "sign of the future."</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> 50% drop in sales? those are last year's numbers. the first four months of 2014 tell a different <a href="http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/mirrorless-growing-again.html">story</a> -- that mirrorless is currently the only growing market segment in the camera industry. That said, it is historically true that north america has lagged, but in nikon's case, the Nikon 1's sales issues can be attributed to misguiding marketing efforts, confusing inventory chain decisions, and overambitious price points. there's actually a demand for the AW1 which isnt being met on dealer shelves -- which is kind of a shame because that's a good example of an innovative product.</p> <blockquote> <p>Most mirrorless cameras (despite their technical prowess) look like glorified point and shoots to a novice or first time buyer. They want what they see the pros using and with the exception of a small number of pros (usually highly advertised by the mirrorless industry) their aren't too many mirrorless cameras being taken out on paid jobs.</p> </blockquote> <p>part of the issue here is that the market for first time DSLR buyers has dried up, compared to 5-7 years ago, when DSLRs were the buzz of the day. another thing is that phones have eroded the compact market, which used to be Nikon and canon's bread and butter. this forced the high-end compact P&S to emerge, which in turn created a demand for compacts with high IQ. the big issue for any camera company now is that the $400-$800 and $800-$1300 market segments are so saturated nowadays, making anything priced above that a hard sell, unless it's clearly innovative and/or unique. in the $500 range, you can get a Sony RX100, a Fuji X-A1, or a Nikon 3200. The Coolpix A, which is a mirrorless entrant, makes little sense at $1100 when the Ricoh GR, which has the same specs, is $700. Nikon obviously has more marketing muscle than Ricoh, but they've priced the camera out of range for likely buyers despite that. So the failure to penetrate the N American market by the big two in mirrorless is partially a result of their less than enthusiastic approach to it, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. <br> <br> Another point that needs to be made is that paid jobs themselves have eroded, certainly in the media segment, as newspapers have cut staff and stock photo companies have made their archives available for free. this has impacts on what people can spend, since freelancers dont get to choose equipment from a photo pool, but have to buy their own gear. the implication, again, is that the over-$1000 market segment becomes a tougher sell, as you're essentially looking at working pros and well-heeled amateurs. Semi-pros might just not foray into FX waters at all. as the mirrorless cameras continue to get better in the critical areas where they are currently lacking --cough, AF tracking, EVF lag, cough--more pros will use them eventually. <br> <br> But what's also a truism is that more and more pros and semi-pros are using mirrorless as secondary or personal systems. if you want a fully manual camera, you have to get at least a d7100 in the nikon lineup, and then you run into the issue of maybe not having the exact lenses you might need or want--cough cough, fast wide primes, cough cough. If mirrorless can fill in those gaps, they'll continue to resonate with market segments who have a need for small yet competant systems, such as travelers, vacationers, hikers, etc. just the fact that a complete fuji or m4/3 system can fit into a fanny pack as opposed to a backpack makes those systems viable, with a more reasoned lens selection than Nikon/Canon APS-C in some cases. in any event, FF mirrorless for Nikon seems like a long way away, and wont happen until after other companies cultivate that market segment first.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The 36MP high resolution sensor doesn't introduce AF or diffraction issues though it may reveal more clearly what issues exist</p> </blockquote> <p>if that's the case, then how come just about every single article i've read on the D800 clearly states that the diffraction tipping point is about f/8 on a d800, compared to f/11-13 on a 12-16 mp sensor? i realize diffraction is a complicated subject, and i'm trying to avoid overly-technical explanations in the interests of boredom relief, but its pretty clear that the higher in MPs you go up, the earlier diffraction comes into play. that HAS to be a sensor issue. the AF issues with the d800 are well-documented as well, so it's hard to imagine the sensor size didnt play a role in that.<br> <br> also, when i said "sweet spot" for FX, i perhaps should have qualified that a bit. in fact, let me amend my previous statement and say the sweet spot for FX is between 16-24 mp. but that sort of depends on the type of photography one is doing. i can still get away with 12mp for photojournalism -- i dont necessarily need more resolution, i dont want bigger files, and i like having a largeish buffer and excellent hi-ISO with my D3s. the D4 and Df are firmly within the center of this range, with their 16mp sensor. PJs probably dont need more than 20 mp, and even at 24mp, the large sensor starts to have some disadvantages in both DX and FX. for general photography, likewise, 24 is more than most people need. but for detail-oriented landscapers, who print big, and wildlife shooters, who may need to crop, it makes more sense to have bigger sensors, even if there are some tradeoffs.</p>

<p>hi,<br> headed down to Baja California for 12 days. mainly chillaxing but might be some photographic opportunities as well. plan to explore san jose del cabo, la paz, and the baja desert. taking a light kit -- 2 x fuji xe1 w/ 14/27/35/60 primes, 18-55 OIS zoom; Nikon J1 w/ 10-30, 30-110 (mainly for telephoto, video), flash w/ off-camera cord, gorillapod, ultrapod, ND+CPL filters, extra batteries and memory cards, chargers, laptop. think that covers the basics, unless i forgot something.</p> <p>my main question is, anyone been down that way who can recommend some things worth photographing? My GF has friends down there, so we will be with locals some of the time. not planning on doing anything super-tourist-y, more looking for quiet coves, white sand beaches, natural scenes and the like. any helpful</p> <p>thanks,<br> eric</p>

<p>the tokina 100 macro is a very good lens, nicknamed the "bokina" for its stellar bokeh, and quite reasonable for the price. on a d3100 it will be the equivalent of a 150mm lens on full frame. however, it will not AF on your camera, although MF works quite well. so the suggestion of an AF-S equivalent lens such as the motorized Tamron 90 is a good one, if you want to AF with it and/or use it as a portrait lens.. the inexpensive Nikon 40mm is probably too short for your needs, and there is a DX 85mm VR micro-nikkor, but it doesnt have a good optical reputation.</p> <p>getting a lens which can go to 1:1 is only part of the equation, however. you will need to stabilize the camera/lens with a tripod and have adequate lighting as well. what you want to do isn't really the kind of stuff that can be done handheld, and may require a lot of fussing around with set-ups to get it right. good luck!</p>

<blockquote> <p>if you have a 50mm, I would pick the 28mm to go with it; 28/50/85 is a very nice set, whereas 35mm pairs well with 85mm for a two-lens set.</p> </blockquote> <p>yup. i almost never use the 50 anymore since i got the sigma 35/1.4. but in general, splitting the focal length between two (or three) primes is an effective method.</p> <p>back to the original question, there's no real advantage of 28 or 35. depends on preference. 35 is perhaps a bit more of an all-arounder as a focal length, but many people like 28 too. obviously, the wider you go, the more care you have to apply in composing. but cropping 28 to 35 is easy-peezy, especially on a d800.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The OP is also asking for such a camera in the "D800 class" -</p> </blockquote> <p>meaning what, exactly? 36 mp sensor? multicam 3500 AF module? 4k video? on-chip beverage dispenser? since we're speculating, let's base our speculations on sensible notions. a compact FX mirrorless camera doesnt need 36 or even 24 MP. it just has to be able to use legacy glass at native length with weight/bulk savings and enough sensor resolution for acuity w/out introducing diffraction/focus errors/ AF issues. based on available research, that sweet spot is 12-18mp, folks. you probably do need video and wi-fi at this point as well. plus at least 5fps. priced just under a d610, it would do well. priced over, and the sales would be considerably less. right now there's a price point gap between the d7100 and d610. that's where my target would be, if i was a nikon exec. unfortunately the stripped-down, chromed-up, overhyped Df kind of messes things up in FX-land, although to be fair, the d610 has more features than the Df and is priced less.</p> <blockquote> <p>I expected the Df to come in below the D600/D610 price point</p> </blockquote> <p>at $1500, i might have swooped one up. at it's current selling price, i'd rather have a d800 or a d610 + a lens or two. that's the other part of the problem -- Nikon's pricing only makes sense if you are a Kardashian. $1100 for a Coolpix A? $1300 for the V3? $1700 for the 58/1.4? almost $3000 for the Df? let's be serious here. when i can get a competent mirrorless body for $500, suddenly spending $2000+ on a bigger body doesnt seem all that appealing any more.</p>

<blockquote> <p>You can upgrade the mystique.</p> </blockquote> <p>+1</p> <blockquote> <p>You seem to be mainly thinking from a Fuji system perspective. The Fuji system is mainly supported by Fuji. All third party attempts are usually a carryover from Sony NEX models, not by any lenses particularly designed for Fuji. The Zeiss Touit line, for example, was designed for Sony and made available for Fuji because it didn't cost Zeiss much to do so.</p> </blockquote> <p>Fuji optics really are good enough to make 3rd party lenses redundant. Even with the current 2-lens deal on Touts, i'm passing because the 14 and 35, which i already have, are <em>that</em> good. for Sony, the Sigmas make sense as they fill gaps in the lens lineup. And legacy glass is a hit or miss proposition, depending on what lens and system you're using. if you found a bunch of Russian rangefinder lenses in a closet, you now have the option of several digital mirrorless systems on which to experiment with them. the main thing i want to reiterate, though, is that photography should be fun and engaging, not some unemotional mechanical technical exercise. whatever gets us closer to that reality is where i want to be. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I'm easy - just add more buffer and a (dedicated) AF-ON button in the correct place. Would prefer a more robust D300-style body but that ship likely has sailed. Some more small things, but they are all firmware related. 24MP is definitely "enough".</p> </blockquote> <p>Nikon's recent history suggest they have a mental block against doing the thing which makes the msot sense, i.e. updating the d700 and d300. But unless they find a way to really increase functionality, it's looking more and more like DSLRs have hit a wall. OTOH, mirrorless continues to innovate and experiment and is beginning to hit the mark with regularity, which i suspect is the draw for aficionados -- along with the physical realities of lighter, more compact gear (a huge benefit in and of itself).</p> <p>As Thom Hogan pointed out, though, mirrorless isn't quite there in terms of surpassing DSLR functionality. Sure the E-M1 and XT1 are perhaps the best efforts yet from Olympus and Fuji, and the technical quality of the Sony A7 is drool-worthy. But as it stands now, there's no do-it-all camera like the d300 and d700 were. What we're seeing is the compartmentalization of the camera market. Different niches for different tasks. As well as a big push for more compactness, which is driving market innovation right now.</p> <p>In all actuality, mirrorless will continue to bleed users away from Nikon/Canon until they change their market strategy from protecting their market share--even at the risk of undermining their own products--to leading with innovation, and not just competing with each other while pretending other companies don't exist. It's pretty surprising Nikon has not put out a Coolpix P series with a 1" sensor and a (fast) fixed zoom to compete with the RX100, which is now on its third iteration, yet.</p> <p>I actually think the future for Nikon does lie in the 1 series, which is a better UI, better sensor performance, and a few fast primes and constant-aperture zooms away from being eminently usable. Nikon also needs to be more consistent and not cannibalize features on compacts with a high-end price tag. But one could see an iterated product line which goes like this: Nikon 1/ DX/ FX and includes sensible decisions which check off the right boxes in the niche market.It's a bit maddening that Nikon 1 gives you the best AF ever in a compact camera but undercuts it with sluggish (or overpriced) lenses and a menu-based UI, as opposed to manual controls. It's irksome that the Coolpix A doesnt have a faster lens or VR and isn't available in other focal lengths a la Sigma's DP series. It's a head scratcher that the D7000 didn't have better AF, and the d7100 has too shallow of a buffer. it's sad that 3rd party lensmakers now offer the best options for prosumer DX. And it's worrisome that Nikon's FX lineup doesnt follow a sensible upgrade path -- there's no sports/action option with the d600/610 sensor, the d600/610 have worse AF than the d7100, and to get the d4 sensor in a smaller package, you have to get the Df, even if that's not what you want. the d800 is a great camera for IQ, but not everyone needs that much resolution for everyday shooting. All of which is to say that Nikon needs to straighten out its product line first before something like a mirrorless FF body would begin to make sense.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Before the Sony RX100, and then the Coolpix A and Ricoh GR (APS version), came out,</p> </blockquote> <p>i see where you're going with that, but you absolutely cannot overlook the X100/x100s, if we are talking about true market innovation. the X100 just lets you shoot, is reasonably configurable, and is a lot of camera in a small package. the new RX100 III has a 2.8 zoom and ISO performance on a par with DSLRs five years ago, which is remarkable for a small sensor camera. (it also raises questions as to why the 1" sensor in the Nikon 1's can't achieve similar results).</p> <p>it's worth noting that both Fuji and Ricoh kept making their large sensor compacts better after release, while Nikon has seemingly abandoned the Coolpix A, of which they also left off a few features, and probably introduced it at too high a price point considering the competition, especially the GR, which now sells for below $700.</p> <p>of course, being a market innovator isn't what nikon has been doing over the last 5 years. they've concentrated on entry-level bodies for the most part, a strategy which has been puzzling at times. which leads to faint praise like this:</p> <blockquote> <p>Personally, I will likely purchase another high-end DX body once Nikon gets around releasing one - but it will be mostly for use with the 80-400 (not something I would want to do with any mirrorless currently available). For the rest of my shooting, DX is out.</p> </blockquote> <p>i'm not sure how much better nikon will do with a future DX DSLR than the d7100, since we seem to have reached peak resolution with the 24mp sensor. Meanwhile, Fuji and Sony have shown that APS-C sensors are viable in mirrorless cams, which questions the need for FX in the first place.</p> <blockquote> <p>What IS a problem with Sony is that even their Zeiss-branded lenses aren't all that great. With a shorter flange-to-sensor distance vignetting rears its (mostly) ugly head even more - and software correction thereof can entail the trading off darkness for noise. Soft corners, be it due to lens aberrations, field curvature, or too thick a glass stack in front of the sensor seem to be quite common too.</p> </blockquote> <p>so there are inherent technical limitations in an FX mirrorless that aren't that easy to overcome. and the elephant in the room is, if Nikon did go there and make one, what lenses would you put on it? by that same token, what would make a nikon-branded FX fixed-focal camera any more compelling than a Sony RX1? Ashton Kutcher? seriously, though a fixed-focal compact FX camera would appeal to a lot of users, probably not at the RX1's current price point. most of us would settle for a 16mp APS-C Coolpix B with an f/2 lens and VR, at the current Coolpix A price point, or a smidgen less expensive, say, $1000. of course, if you sell a lot of those, you're training the consumer not to buy additional lenses and to decouple from the system approach to cameras which precedes the DSLR era. which has likely been Nikon's fear all along.</p>

<p>interesting question, complicated answer. i'd like to see nikon compete with APS-C mirrorless first, but Fuji beat them to the punch and got most of the details right, such as high-quality compact bodies, full manual controls, and (mostly) compact, high-quality lenses -- including a fairly complete set of primes. as far as FFML, Sony beat nikon to the punch on that and appear to have gotten the bodies mostly right, though not the lenses. meanwhile, The Nikon 1 series is interesting, but the simplified UI is a step in the wrong direction, and the lenses have been underwhelming. they're not terrible cameras if you can live with their limitations, but Nikon doesn't seem to know who its marketing to. same thing with the Coolpix A, which lacks the top-end features to justify its price point. but to the OP, i'd have to ask, what would a nikon FFML offer that a Df doesn't, besides a possibly more modern appearance? using anything other than primes on a smaller FF body is going to be problematic, unless Nikon introduces a new mount, which would probably screw up their production pipeline. it is interesting that Sony hasn't gone all-in on FE mount lenses yet. and a nikon FFML would be interesting if it had faster and more accurate AF tracking than the Fuji XT1, but then the same could be said of an APS-C mirrorless, which could conceivably use the smaller DX lenses. i really think the mount issue is what's stopped Nikon from innovating more in the mirrorless realm. you can't just abandon the F-mount to build a new system -- or can you? and if you could, would you want to?</p>