eric_arnold

<blockquote> <p>For video, get a <em>cheap</em> tripod. </p> </blockquote> <p>pretty subjective, and possibly-misleading advice, there. the el super cheapo pods (> $50) arent particularly good investments, lacking durability as well as acceptable stability. plus they can be bulkier than necessary. <br> <br> instead of <em>cheap</em> as criteria, i would say application-specific. for shooting video in beach environments, you dont want anything too heavy, if you're going to be humping over sand dunes and the like. you dont need a massive weight rating if your longest lens is a consumer zoom and you have one of the lighter DSLR bodies -- what you might need for mountaineering, landscape, and wildlife would be overkill here. but you do want something stable, since beaches can be windy. most likely, this means a decent leg set and maybe spending a little more for a separate head, preferably tilt/pan. i wouldnt overspend on this, but then i wouldnt underspend, either.</p>

<blockquote> <p> I will look into the X100 + 35/2 or XE1 + 18-55 & XT10 and also the m4/3 maybe as a backup camera.</p> </blockquote> <p>just to clarify, the X100 comes with a built-in 35/2, and XE1 and XT10 are seperate bodies which can each mount the 18-55 or other lenses. you can also get a wide adapter to make the X100 a 28mm equiv. lens. it's perfect for candid shots such as dinner pics. i rarely find i need something wider for those situations. Also, Nikon has a rebate price currently on its 24/1.8, which might complement your 50mm with the D600. So, no shortage of options. </p>

<blockquote> <p>just picking up the 55-300, and a hot-shoe flash (and a reflector) will get me everything I need to START. </p> </blockquote> <p>that's about the gist of it. i personally wouldnt get the 55-300 as it's not great on the long end, but it may not matter for your purposes, since you are not taking landscape pics and dont need corner to corner sharpness. since you are just starting, my main advice is not to overthink this initially and work with the gear you have. an investment in tripod and flash/reflectors will probably give you more bang for the buck than dumping hundreds or thousands into lenses right away. later on, you'll have a better idea of what you actually need. for example, if you aren't shooting low-light pics with no flash, you dont need a fast prime right away. down the line, you may want a specific focal length for video as well as a lens with a clickless aperture ring. but it's better to master the learning curve right away before diving into the deep end. </p>

<blockquote> <p> I had been using rather pricey 512 MB cards for everything.</p> </blockquote> <p>those cards are about $20 now. ;)<br> <br> this is actually an interesting thread, because it shows that technology still works long after its been "obsoleted." for example, the D1x shoots 9fps at 5 MP. that's speedier than any Nikon DX body except the D500 and D2x. the D50 (which was a stripped-down D70 btw) has 1/500 flash sync. and the 10mp CCD sensor in the D200 delivers outstanding IQ --at base ISO. That body was also built like a tank.<br> <br> For casual shooting and prints up to 8x10, you really dont need more than 5-6mp, especially if the shots are just going into a web folder. All of that is to say, i find Rick's comments a bit refreshing in this age of technological hyper-acceleration. No doubt, larger and more high-res monitor screens are nice to have, and probably the biggest single reason (along with better high-ISO) not to look backwards, but when you pare it all down to the bare essentials of what a shooter actually needs to shoot, some of those ancient DSLRs are still pretty good. I'm actually still getting a lot of use out of my D300s, and i know a guy who still shoots with a d40x.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Over all the decades, whenever I have strayed from Nikon, I have sold what I settled for and returned when I could afford to. </p> </blockquote> <p>there are almost no "bad" macro lenses. for decades, the tamron 90 carved out a stellar reputation which is matched by the tokina 100 and all the nikon 105 versions. these days, nikon's build quality isnt what it used to be, and some of the contemporary 3rd party variants are actually better in IQ. that said, some of the older AF-D Nikons are pretty good -- the 28-105 has a trick 1:2 macro mode which makes it pretty versatile. in a perfect world, it would be updated with VR for handheld closeup use!</p>

<p>since the lens is no longer under warranty, it doesnt matter whether you ship it to Sigma or not. warranty service wouldnt cover physical damage anyway. i would call Photo Tech and see if you can just bring it there. might be faster turnaround than shipping it through corporate. you could also email sigma and see if they will give you an estimate. </p>

<p>so, you can still extend the zoom physically, or no? i dont think anyone here can tell you what happened precisely, but it sounds like you may have dinged it. in any event, this doesnt seem like it is user-fixable and will require service. at least you have other lenses. </p>

<blockquote> <p> a night out with friends or family.</p> </blockquote> <p>to me, this is the crux of the issue. it's not that this application requires a full-frame body with two long zooms. indeed, almost any compact could suffice for this, including a small DSLR, an X-camera, a m4/3 setup, an LX100, Ricoh GR, or an RX100. What you really want here is a camera which doesnt get in the way, and lends itself to casual/candid shooting opportunities. i dont even think interchangeable lenses and/or a zoom lens is required. For me, the X100 with its 35/2 equiv. lens handles this well and is jacket-pocketable. the XE1+18-55 is a bit more obtrusive, but essentially replaces a larger DSLR with standard zoom. a small form factor is a key component in candid shooting, since my 24-70 Nikon can be intimidating. i guess at this point, my advice is not to overthink this too much. The OP may even find that the D600 with just the 50/1.4, which he already has, is enough.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Eric Brody makes an excellent point. Adapted lenses are okay up to a point, but native lenses are a lot more convenient.</p> </blockquote> <p>this exact point has been made already several times during this thread. that's what i mean by circular discussion. in this situation, the OP's standard zoom isn't ideal for adaptation due to lack of aperture dial. moreover, using that and his other zoom on a Fuji body will still leave him with a heavy, bulky set-up -- which is counter-intuitive to the thread's topic, i.e., going lighter. that's simply not possible in a meaningful way, as long as you're still carrying 5 lbs of lenses, and long lenses at that. <br> <br> if i was the OP, i would meander over to the <a href="http://www.fujix-forum.com/">Fuji X-Forum</a>, and ask a wider sampling of actual Fuji shooters their opinions on the XP2 or other Fuji bodies and the pros and cons of using adapted Nikon lenses on Fujis in general, as well as those two specific F-mount zooms. You might get some of the same responses, but at least you'll get a larger demographic of people who have actually used Fuji cameras. </p>

<p>the D3300 is exactly 300g lighter than a D600. Not a huge weight savings there. however, the 24-70+80-200 combo will <em>always</em> weigh 5 lbs. Even if the Tamron has a focus motor, unless the OP has the rarer 80-200 with AF-S, that lens will not AF on a D3300. Which to me would be highly problematic. To me, getting a somewhat lighter Nikon body and using the same exact heavy/bulky lenses doesnt solve the problem of the kit being too large/heavy for casual carry. I think i mentioned this before, but i have a Nikon FX set-up with 24-70+70-200, as well as a lighter Fuji kit with several primes and 18-55. there's no question what i would rather carry for long periods of time. </p> <p>I kind of feel like this discussion has become a bit circular, since we are now re-discussing things which have already been discussed. The bottom line is that you can't significantly lighten up your kit by using the same heavy lenses which were the issue in the first place. You can maybe shave 1/3rd to 2/3rds of a lb. by swapping the FX body for a DX body, but you can't reduce the weight of those two zooms. </p>

<blockquote> <p>While the XPro2 might look like a "rangefinder" camera, it has a hybrid viewfinder as well, and is perfectly capable of handling longer lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p>i already pointed this out. however, pointing this out is missing the point. every single review of the XP2 ive read, as well as Fuji's own design team's published comments, clearly state the camera is designed to work best with shorter lenses. For example, Fuji makes a vertical grip for the XT1, but not for the XP2. Whether you choose to acknowledge this fact or not is more attitude than practicality.</p> <blockquote> <p>Please spare us this obsession that a light camera is only useful in a lightweight configuration. </p> </blockquote> <p>Perhaps we need to review the OP's remarks which launched this thread, where he clearly indicates the problem with his current kit is its heaviness and bulk. </p> <blockquote> <p>the only thing stopping me is the weight of the camera, <strong>most of the times I don't bother carrying my camera because its too heavy</strong> to carry around for a night out with friends or family.</p> </blockquote> <p>Obviously, replacing a 7-lb kit with a 5-lb kit doesn't completely mitigate this issue. OTOH, an XT10+18-55 would weigh 1.5 lbs. while providing 80% of the functionality of the larger kit. An XP2 would weigh around 100g more. </p>

<blockquote> <p>have you considered a small, entry-level Nikon DSLR, with something like a 18-105VR which can cover most normal duties, and isn't large nor heavy? It would take all your Nikon lenses without adapter, though with some functionality impairments for some lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p>i addressed this point earlier too. An entry-level DX Nikon body won't have a focus motor, which would render the Tamron 24-70 manual focus-only. you'd have to step up to a d7000 at least to get full AF capabilities. And even then, you haven't really solved the problem, because you're still lugging around 5 lbs. worth of lenses on a slightly lighter body. The d7000 is only 3 oz. lighter than a d600.</p>

<blockquote> <p> Main lenses would be the zooms, 16-55/2.8, 50-140/2.8.</p> </blockquote> <p>Full stop. if you plan on using Fuji's pro-spec zooms, i would NOT get an XP series body. the OVF with its framelines isnt designed to work with anything that long. True, you can just use the EVF, but IMO it would make more sense to get an XT1, or wait for the XT2, if you're gonna be EVF-reliant and use long zooms. The XP series is optimized for use with primes, and smaller primes at that. <br> <br> The other thing to consider is that an XT or XP body + 16-55 +40-150 doesn't actually save you all that much weight over your existing kit. The 16-55 is less than 200g lighter than the Tamron 24-70. the 40-150 weighs 300g less than the 80-200. So, you're shaving just 1 lb. total on lenses. If the goal is to have a lighter system with less bulk, replicating your DSLR set-up with an APS-C mirrorless isn't the best way to get there. For comparison's sake, the Fuji 18-55 weighs less than 1/2 what the 16-55 does. </p> <blockquote> <p>you can use your existing Nikon lenses with an adapter, which will range in cost from a few dollars to $300 </p> </blockquote> <p>we already covered this, but the Nikon adapters range all the way up to $500 USD for one with a number scale. The cheaper ones either have no aperture rings, unmarked aperture rings, or line markings. this would make more sense to me if the OP's lenses were all AF-D, AI, or AI-S.</p> <blockquote> <p>While a two pound (or heavier) lens is not ideal for a "light" camera system, any "imbalance" is a matter of attitude rather than practicality.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not necessarily. An imbalanced body/lens combo could put additional stress on the camera mount, impacting long-term durability. if the OP were to insist on getting the 16-55+40-150--which adds about $2400 to cost btw--it defeats the purpose of the rangefinder-style body. In that case, you'd want the XT1 and the optional grip, which adds even more weight and bulk to your "lighter" system.<br> <br> From a practicality standpoint, you can't go light without subtracting significant size and weight. well, you can, but the savings may not result in much actual difference when it's all said and done, at considerable expense. Swapping a 7-lb system for a 5-lb system, at a cost of more than $3500, would only be slightly less cumbersome. Therefore, my advice is, if you're gonna go light, get more compact lenses. If you want 2.8 zooms in a mirrorless system, the Panasonic 12-35+35-100 for m4/3 bodies offer significant weight savings over their FF DSLR equivalents as well as the Fuji 2.8 zooms. the 12-35 is only 10 oz, the 35-100 is only 12 oz. both can be had right now for under $2000. Of course that would entail a smaller sensor format, but that's the only way to get pro-spec zooms and also enable a significantly more compact kit. The main reason to invest in a Fuji system IMO are the splendid primes. if you just want to use zooms, i would probably look elsewhere. </p>

<p>if i was starting from scratch and had decided on an XP2 as my main body, i would get: 14/2, 16/1.4, 23/1.4, and 35/2. possibly the 27/2.8 instead of the 23, although i do love fast primes. no zooms. these lenses all play to the camera's strengths. expensive, yeah, but that would be a nice kit. if i just wanted a compact body+ lens, i'd look at XE2 or XT10 w/ 18-55/2.8-4 OIS. if i was planning on mainly using big zooms, i would instead look at the XT1 with 16-55/2.8 and 40-150/2.8. at that point, however, i have a mirrorless DSLR equivalent and have moved away from the compact RF aesthetic. using 3rd party zooms with an adapter on an XP2 kind of sounds like an exercise in counter-intuitivity, especially if these are lenses without dedicated aperture rings. it can be done, but that's a Frankencamera, and kind of a waste of an XP2, IMO.</p>

<blockquote> <p>can I use my Nikon lenses with any adapter of sorts?</p> </blockquote> <p>just noticed the Tamron 24-70 doesnt have an aperture ring. Which means it's not ideal for using with an adapter. First of all, you'd need an adapter with an aperture ring; not all of them support this function, and most of the ones that do don't have numbered markings (except for the Metabones Speed Booster, which costs 5x as much as the basic Metabones f>x adapter). So at best, this would be an imprecise way of using F-mount lenses. AF-D, AI, and AS-I lenses would work better in this regard than G lenses.</p>

<blockquote> <p>With the low light performance of the Fuji pro1 2.8 aperture is not a problem</p> </blockquote> <p>i didn't say aperture was a "problem." but you can get shallower DoF with a faster lens. it's all a matter of preferences. if you're used to shooting street and what-not with a fast 1.4 or 1.8 lens at wider apertures to get that 'pop' from subject isolation, f/2.8 may seem slow. the Fuji 27's bokeh isn't especially great, either. where the 27/2.8 excels, however, is that it is edge to edge sharp when stopped down, something faster lenses like the 35/1.4 never achieve. i also occasionally like shooting urban scenes in extreme low-light. i sometimes do this with a FF DSLR and a 1.4 lens, and sometimes with APS-C bodies. with my Fuji XE1, low-light performance is pretty good, and ISO 5000 is fairly clean. however, there are times when 2.8 is not bright enough for what i want to shoot. i can't shoot as cleanly at ISO 6400 as i can with my D3s, but i can make up for that with the 35/1.4. Again, not knocking the 27, just stating that every lens has pros and cons.</p>

<blockquote> <p>happy-snapping is much more convenient with Fuji's own AF zooms <em>which get again beaten by an original DSLR made for your lenses</em>.</p> </blockquote> <p>agree that using adapted Nikkors in manual-focus mode is not the best for "happy-snapping," but the second half of the sentence is puzzling. In my experience, the Fuji 18-55--which is the only zoom i have for my X-cameras--is comparable or better in IQ to the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 AF-S. the Nikkor has constant 2.8, but its weight and bulk make it unwieldy for walkaround use. <br> <br> other than printing super-large, the main reasons to go with a Nikon FF DSLR over a similar Fuji set-up would really be high-ISO performance and AF speed, and even then i'm not sure a d600/tamron 24-70 combo is going to be the snappiest. some might add shallow DoF to that list, but none of the FF 24-70's really have excellent bokeh, though you do gain 2 stops of shallower DoF with a 24-70 @ 70mm, compared to an 18-55 @ 50mm. anyway, in practice, ive found the 18-55/2.8-4 to be a surprisingly good little gem of a lens. enough so that im not considering adding the 16-50/2.8. </p>

<blockquote> <p>In the UK you can pick a pro1 for as little as 250gbp and the superb 27mm lense for 200gbp. I have tested this lens against my Nikon prime lenses and it is a noticeable step above in image quality.</p> </blockquote> <p>yeah i have the 27mm too. i wouldn't say it is head and shoulders above Nikon primes, but certainly comparable in IQ. it's not better than the Sigma 35/1.4 ART, but that lens is massive for a prime. you have to love the Fuji 27's 41mm equivalent focal length and be okay with the relatively slow (for a prime) 2.8 aperture, but the tiny size is a huge plus for street and the sharpness is corner to corner, which is rare for a pancake-y lens. i find, however, that i use the 27 and the 35/1.4 far less than i thought i would, mainly because the 18-55 is so good and reasonably compact. I would rank the 18-55 right up there with my Nikon 24-70/2.8 AF-S for IQ, but the Fuji's may be sharper since they dont have an AA filter. and the 18-55 is also stabilized. Agree that the XP1 is a steal right now, and a good entry-point into the X-system. The later bodies all have better/faster AF, which may or may not be worth the price differential.</p>

<p>Huizafa, i have to say, also, that i dont completely understand the logic behind buying a $1700 body and not spending a dime on lenses, especially since that same $1700, or far less, could get you a body+lens combo or an all-in-one compact. it would be one thing if the XP2 worked perfectly with Nikon lenses and solved your bulk/weight problem. But it doesn't. Ultimately, it's your money, but i'm seeing the XT10+18-55 kit is just <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00X7QTTME/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_3?pf_rd_p=1944687662&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B00FPKDPZC&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=03BA019T0TYJ6C9JN123">$900 on Amazon right now</a>, which could be a solution for you. That $800 you save vs. the XP2 body-only could finance a 23/1.4, 35/2, or other fast Fuji prime.</p>

<p>in addition to the Nikkor 105, the Tamron 90 and Tokina 100 are highly-reputed FX macros which don't cost too much. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Adorama has some very good prices on the XE-2 kit right now and I think the XE-2 can be upgraded via software to do everything the XE-2n and XT-10 do,</p> </blockquote> <p>XE2 is a pretty good, very compact body, but it lacks the hybrid VF of the XP series. i have an XE1 and it's very svelte yet capable with the 18-55 or 27/2.8 lenses. That said, XPro1s are down to just <a href="http://www.samys.com/p/Fuji/16225391/X-Pro1-Mirrorless-Digital-Camera-Body-Black/107898.html?origin=product-search&gclid=Cj0KEQjw-Mm6BRDTpaLgj6K04KsBEiQA5f20Eyx7hDGiqGqaNr6xRyZKbxssLBvTwZqCU8GhbcghlZ0aAg728P8HAQ">$499 new right now</a>. XE2 and XT10 have faster AF, but that's still a very good price on what was once a flagship body which cost $1700 at introduction.</p>

<blockquote> <p>However,<em> the only thing stopping me is the weight of the camera,</em> most of the times I don't bother carrying my camera because its too heavy to carry around for a night out with friends or family.</p> </blockquote> <p>the heaviest thing about your kit isnt the camera, <strong>it's the lenses</strong>. the tamron is almost 2 lbs, the nikon zoom almost 3 lbs. the d600 is a little heavier than the tamron, but not an especially heavy body as these things go. So my first suggestion would be lighter lenses for your current kit. carrying bulky 2 pro-spec zooms isnt the best choice for casual shooting opportunities. you could maybe add a 35 or 24mm prime, or a lighter zoom like the 24-85 VR or 28-105.</p> <p>second suggestion would be a lighter Nikon DX body which allows you to use your current lenses. however, you'd want at least a d7000 to maintain AF with the 80-200, and you'd only be saving less than 100g from the weight of the d600. so that doesn't really solve your problem (large, bulky lenses).</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>I am looking at the Fujifilm X-Pro 2 but<em> the only thing stopping me is the investment in lenses</em>.</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't really think there's a way around this. Adding an XPro2 (495g/17.5 oz) would shave about 1/3rd of the body weight from the camera. However, this would be a poor choice with your current lenses. neither of those zooms would balance especially well on an XP2, and they'd be just as bulky as on a d600, plus you'd lose AF. the XP2 in particular is designed to work best with shorter lenses, and on top of that, it's somewhat counter-intuitive to use 3rd party lenses on a Fuji X-camera, since much of the system's appeal is its native glass, and they have many attractive options in that department.</p> <p>The reality is that <strong>if you want a smaller/lighter system, you need smaller/lighter lenses</strong>. this seems obvious, yes? Any system you adopt is going to require investment in lenses, and getting a different body but using the same lenses doesn't solve your weight issues. Honestly, i would forget about using the 24-70/80-200 on a non-Nikon system. Just doesnt make a great deal of sense, IMO. If you just need a casual, lighter kit, any of the Fuji x-bodies with the 18-55/2.8-4 would be sufficient, while the Fuji 35/2 makes for a great single-lens candid/street kit. You could also be satisfied with something like an A6000+ 16-50, a Panasonic LX100, or a Fuji X100-series. (I also have a full Nikon FX kit with 24-70+70-200, but for the type of shooting you describe, the X100 works like a champ, in my experience). Even a Sony RX100 could be a compact solution.</p> <p>So, in summary, you can't go small/light while retaining large, clunky lenses. Therefore, your best options are either a lighter ILC system or a lighter all-in-one body. You could also just get lighter lenses for your current system. the 24-85 VR weighs about 1 lb., or almost 1/2 the weight of the 24-70. If we're doing weight comparisons, a d600+24-85 VR = 26.8 oz +16.4 oz = 43.2 oz, or just over 2 1/2 lbs. a Xp2+18-55 = 15.7 oz. + 11.64 oz = 27.34 oz. </p> <blockquote> <p>I only handled the X-Pro2 with 58mm f1.2 in a store and the AF didn't appear as quick as I'd love it to be</p> </blockquote> <p>That may be so, but the X-system's AF speed is highly dependent on the lenses it's used with. The 56/1.2 isn't a snappy lens by any reckoning, but something like the 14/2.8 would be near-instantaneous.</p> <p> </p>

<p>http://eng-ca.faq.panasonic.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/26432/~/what-is-the-synchro-scan%3F---dmc-gh4</p> <blockquote> <h1 id="rn_Summary">What is the Synchro Scan? - DMC-GH4</h1> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>Synchro scan automatically reduces flicker under fluorescent light etc. with finer adjustment than conventional flicker reduction function, It can be used in M-mode video recording.</p> </blockquote>

<blockquote> <p>the lens can still blur a background more at 55mm f/5.6 than at 18mm f/3.5 - but it depends how far the background is from the subject.</p> </blockquote> <p>trying to make this non-technical as possible, but @ 3.5 you have a shallower depth of field than @ 5.6. but you will have more compression at 55mm than at 18mm. <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/397-nikkor18553556vr?start=2">if you look at the sample shots from the photozone 18-55 review</a>, there's one shot at 55mm and 6.3, and another at 18mm and 3.5 which show the blur/bokeh characteristics of this lens. The shots show subject isolation, but the bokeh isn't particularly great, as expected. as others have stated, a lens with a larger max aperture would offer more in the way of bokeh, if you are trying to get that specific effect. </p> <p>it's helpful, i think, to know what is and isn't possible with those two lenses, neither of which is going to be particularly great in the bokeh department. you wont be able to achieve the melted-away backgrounds the same as with a 1.4 or 1.8 lens, but you should be able to arrive at a reasonable approximation of blur with the right technique and framing, especially with the 55-200 @ 200mm. another thing to keep in mind is that the 18-55 has pretty decent close-focusing ability (1:3.2, which is almost semi-macro), which could help when framing shots.</p>

<p>to make this simple, you'll see the most dramatic bokeh shooting wide open --f/3.5 -- at 18mm with the 18-55. at 55mm, the max. aperture is 5.6. that setting isn't especially conducive to bokeh, but depending on the framing, it is possible to get interesting out of focus backgrounds. the same thing goes for the 55-200, except at 200mm, the backgrounds will be more compressed than at closer focal lengths. so if you shoot something at 200mm with a foreground subject and a distant background, the compression should give you a "bokeh effect," even though the max aperture of 5.6 @ 200mm doesnt allow for too much subject isolation, compared to a "faster" lens with a 2.8 or 1.8 max aperture. if you want to experiment with out of focus renderings or bokeh shots, i recommend getting the 50/1.8 G lens and shooting at a wider aperture than is possible with either of the kit lenses. </p>