eric_arnold

<blockquote> <p> primarily a holiday, not a dedicated photo tour</p> </blockquote> <p>that's another reason i wouldn't overload the gear. it should be obvious by now that you're not going to get <em>everything</em> you could theoretically shoot if you had unlimited time and were in control of your own movements, and if there is limited time for photo opportunities, an overstuffed gear bag just adds more confusion. with a 14-24 + 70-200 + (80-400 or 200-500), you're really only missing the snapshot range, which can be handled with the RX100 (a fairly capable compact in and of itself). that's still a lot to carry but if you're mainly transporting the gear on a bus, it should be doable. i love the results from the Sigma 35, but i would leave it at home. ditto the 50. One thing to keep in mind is that with an 810 and 70-200, you will look like Shooter McPro compared to grandma with her iPhone or point and shoot. Whatever you do, don't compound things by getting a khaki photo vest like a NatGeo assignment shooter. Relax, have fun, and let the shots come to you. Don't overstress the photo thing, and it should work out fine. </p>

<p>hi Tammy, my advice is to not overthink this and keep things simple. if i were you, i'd start out with the 18-140 and the 35/1.8. that's actually a pretty versatile starter kit. the 18-140 should handle most things (in good light) and has enough range that you wont have to constantly swap lenses. the 35 will be good for low-light/no-flash and also full body portraits. use that for a few months, and maybe later on add another fast prime, like the 85/1.8, for dedicated portraits. you could also get something slightly shorter for portraits, like a 60mm, but i would hold off on that initially and get accustomed to the 35 first. you may also want to add a flash and SC-29 sync cord for off-camera flash at some point.</p>

<blockquote> <p> I can't afford a laptop.</p> </blockquote> <p>laptops are cheap these days. </p> <blockquote> <p>the gap in between 45mm and 100mm sounded a bit much</p> </blockquote> <p>you said you shot wildlife.<br> <br> as for macro, personally, i would get the olympus 60/2.8 for $200 more than the oshiro, which might make a good backup macro for all those times when you need 2:1. but AF with IBIS would help for handheld macro.<br> <br> i think you need to be realistic about what your budget will afford. it takes time to build a system. $1000 will get you in the door. </p>

<blockquote> <p>The sync speed is 1/250 and the flash speed is 1/60.</p> </blockquote> <p>1/60 (or 1/64) could result in dark images. take the flash out of manual mode and shoot at iTTL full power to make sure it can do that. </p>

<p>i wouldnt take more than three lenses. you're talking about a 14-24, a 70-200, and a longer lens, and the sigma 35 and 50? that's a lot to haul if you're doing any walking at all. also the 14-24 dosent take filters, so that could be problematic during midday. i would take a wide-angle, rent an 80-400 or a 200-500, and something like a 28-105 (which does 1:2 macro in trick mode) for the midrange.</p>

<p>where are you seeing the A6300 for $1500? MSRP is $1000 as per DPReview,or $1150 with the 16-50 kit lens, as per B&H.</p> <p>anyway, i think the answer here is no. if you're not interested in 4k video, that removes a lot of the A6300's appeal. the other headline feature is the "4D Hybrid AF" system with 4 gazillion PDAF points (actually 479). neat feature if you shoot hummingbird racing, but IMO you would be better off getting an A6000 and investing in lenses, since the kit lens is crappy. this can mean a significant extra outlay for the 16-70/4 Zeiss, which costs more than the A6000 by itself. </p> <p>since we're now up to a hypothetical $1550, we should probably comparison-shop and see what else is available at that price point. oh lookie here: everything from higher-end DSLRs to pro compacts to entry-level full frame. so why do we want an A6000 camera again?</p>

<p>"35mm-equivalent" doesnt mean a 35mm focal length, it means the lens is a 24-70 in 35mm terms, once the crop factor is considered. the description is right there in the B&H listing. the crop factor in a compact like the RX100 is a little different from an APS-C or m4/3 body. the RX100 uses a 1" sensor which allows the body and lens to be small. but since the camera has a fixed zoom lens, you dont have to fuss over 35mm equivalence with various lenses -- it will always be a 24-70.</p> <blockquote> <p>Since the RX100 is largely targeted to non-enthusiast users</p> </blockquote> <p>i would argue that a $1000 compact with 4k video is indeed targeted at the enthusiast market. 1/32,000 shutter speed is not a standard consumer feature, and 16fps is faster than both Nikon and Canon's top pro DSLRs. in fact, the RX100 IV is pretty high up there, as far as the high-end compact market goes, in both spec and price. For example, the Ricoh GR is an enthusiast camera costing hundreds less, as is the Fuji X70. Generally speaking, a camera's features and price point determine whether it's an enthusiast camera or not. The RX100 series is technologically advanced, with a lot of external controls, and sells at a premium price point well above a basic point and shoot. it's about as "pro" as a compact can be.</p> <blockquote> <p>Sony's descriptions simplify the traditional terminology rather than use the actual focal lengths.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> i'm personally thankful that Sony lists the lens as 24-70, since i would go crazy trying to figure out the conversion factor if they didn't.</p>

<p>that ISO 12800 looks like 1600 on a d300. </p>

<p>why not just get am e-m5 mk I? reason being, if you will be shooting in inclement weather often, i'd rate weather-sealing pretty high. refurbs are $375 on fleabay, which leaves some budget for lenses. note the 45-200 is not weather-sealed; for birding, i would prefer the 100-300, which gives you 600mm equivalent at 5.6. the oshiro looks interesting but it uses an adapter for m4/3. it's also cheaper on amazon, $250. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I also think that a full frame camera will support my portraiture endeavors more than an APS-C, also taking the high ISO performance into account since I enjoy making photos in low light.</p> </blockquote> <p>ok, but your post listed two APS-C bodies. if you have already decided to get a FF camera, why post at all? and are you planning to take bird portraits or shoot birds in flight? </p>

<p>From <a href="http://www.sony.com/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx100m4#product_details_default">Sony's website</a>: ZEISS® Vario-Sonnar® T* 24-70 mm lens with F1.8-2.8 aperture<br> <br> wondering what review listed the lens as 35mm. a quick web search revealed no such claim from 5-6 top sites. </p>

<blockquote> <p>does the IQ of the D7200 match up to the D750 at say, 6400 ISO?</p> </blockquote> <p>no.</p> <blockquote> <p>I will make my final decision purely on the basis of IQ at high ISO values.</p> </blockquote> <p>it's your money, but if i was a bird photographer, i would get the D500 for the tracking AF abilities.</p>

<p>the D90 was a great consumer body when it came out. i still have mine, but i dont use it much these days. for me, the limitation wasn't so much IQ, but AF capabilities. But the newer bodies are better in every way. Still, it's hard to say if upgrading a camera would make a difference in the quality of the OP's photos, or a Rich says, whether it would be a better idea to upgrade lenses. i agree with the other posters that analyzing your shots on a technical and aesthetic level would be a good initial step. if the D90 is holding you back, you should be able to articulate exactly how it's holding you back. </p>

<blockquote> <p> If it is D7200 , I would want atleast ISO 6400 to be usable .</p> </blockquote> <p>the D7200 is a generation behind the D500 in low-light performance, so that might be pushing it. Personally, i would want a very long lens if photographing leopards in the wild. </p>

<p>the 810 is a high-resolution camera, but not a high-performance camera. 5fps would be a lot more limiting than the D500's 10 fps, and unless you shoot a lot at ISO 6400+, the D500 should be able to handle reasonable low-light situations. Nikon actually doesnt make a high-performance/high-resolution model, and to get that same level of speed in FX costs about $4500 extra. A more practical matter for the OP may be that he's used to using the 150-600 on a DX body; switching to FX would cause one to have to rethink how you shoot that lens, which would no longer have the crop factor.</p>

<p>sounds excellent, Shun. have you used the touchscreen AF yet? curious about that. </p>

<blockquote> <p>In the case of mirror lenses, the 500/8 and 800/11 are similarly priced. Maybe not for the high-end ED lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p>a mirror lens would be pretty terrible for wildlife photography. also, a Nikon 500/4 is about $6700, an 800/5.6 runs around $16,000.</p>

<p>i would still get the Leica Q if it served my purposes, despite DXOMark's ratings. im just saying that it's not the highest-rated camera. </p>

<blockquote> <p>a camera rumoured from Sony that will pretty much <em>crush, kill and destroy anything else</em> on the market </p> </blockquote> <p>sorry, had to chuckle at this.</p> <blockquote> <p> The Leica Q (24Mpx) delivers better image quality, from what I have seen on DPReview, than either the Sony RX1rII (42Mpx) or the Nikon D810 (36Mpx). </p> </blockquote> <p>This seems pretty subjective, and not backed up by professional testing. Both the Sony and the Nikon actually achieve much higher overall scores on <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings">DXOMark</a>. The Leica Q is rated at just #29 overall, and a woeful #68 for "landscape." I think the reason to get a Leica Q is for 28mm aficionados who need to print very large and shoot handheld; most people would be just as happy with a Ricoh GR or even a Nikon Coolpix A.</p> <p>The problem with an action camera with a 72mp sensor is that that much resolution is total overkill. Sports pros who have to transmit files for publication during an event could get frustrated with transfer times. Currently, pro sports cameras are less than 24mp, raising the question of why this would even be needed.</p> <blockquote> <p>For deliverables, you could probably scale the exported files down to 24Mpx or even 12Mpx, depending on what your client or recipient expects.</p> </blockquote> <p>So, you are suggesting here that a 24mp or 12mp file will be the final result. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a 72mp sensor?<br> <br> I do agree that a Sony body with improved tracking AF, dual memory slots, weather-sealing and fast frame rate could be an interesting alternative to a D5 or a 1Dx. But i dont think it would have to be 72mp, maybe not even 24mp. </p>

<blockquote> <p>It would be interesting to know why many of the hardcore wildlife photographer do not use DX ( hope I am not wrong ) . At least , Moose Peterson's disclosed gear list does not have any . That they go for D4s and D5 , is nothing new . Getting close to the subject may not always be possible . It may not be an open grassland or there may be other restrictions to the movement . Probably , they go for gear that can, not only perform well but also withstand the demanding conditions . But , is not difference in image qualities of DX and FX in those demanding conditions getting narrower ?</p> </blockquote> <p>The D500 may be a game-changer in this regard, since Nikon hasn't had a professional-level DX body since the D300s in 2009. A simple explanation might be just that Peterson hasn't tried a D500 yet. Peterson's gear list is dated 2/25/16; the D500 didnt start shipping until late April. Peterson may be an extreme case, in any event, since his main lens is the $16,000 800/5.6. note the 150-600 Tamron gives up less than a stop of aperture and is 100m longer on DX (while costing $15k less). it's also worth noting that Peterson is a Nikon Ambassador, which may mean he's not paying full retail on all that gear. Another prominent wildlife shooter who uses both FX and DX is Thom Hogan, whose longest lenses are 400 and 500mm. These two differ in approach; Peterson uses the 14-24, which doesnt take filters, and has no lenses between 70mm and 300mm; Hogan uses the 70-200/4 and the 16-35/4 and frequently pairs the D7200 with the 80-400. A list of Hogan's gear, which includes a DX kit, is <a href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/technique/essays/in-thoms-bag.html">here</a>. Hogan's list is from January, pre-D5/D500 release btw. Of late, he's been blogging a lot about the D500, so it seems likely that will replace the D7200 in his bag. </p>

<p>moving from a d7000 to a d500, you should see better high-ISO results, but the biggest improvements will be elsewhere, particularly in AF-C tracking ability. there is a theoretical ISO limit with DX, but 3200 should be within the envelope. of course you can always shoot with a faster lens and/or wider aperture, but getting out to 600mm with another lens wouldn't be cheap. </p>

<blockquote> <p>That's a lot of lenses to be incompatible with.</p> </blockquote> <p>most of those lenses are discontinued. according to DPReview, the only three current lenses are : the 30mm F1.4 DC HSM Art, 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art and APO 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM. ICYMI, Sigma is offering to repair any lens affected by this, the announcement is <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/3395336918/sigma-offers-part-replacement-to-prevent-lenses-scratching-pentax-k-1">here</a>. While this might seem like a hassle, i have to say, Sigma gets points for customer service and accountability. The Pentax Forums post Douglas linked to is dated May 11; the Sigma press release is dated May 12. That's a pretty swift response!</p>

<blockquote> <p>there is no "do it all" type of camera yet .</p> </blockquote> <p>This is probably a good thing, when you think about it. There are overall/all-around bodies like the D7200 and D750 which will do a lot of things well, but involve some compromises. If you want better performance/speed, you're looking a D500 or D5. If you want max. resolution, or top performance with 35mm lenses at native focal lengths, you're looking at a D810. </p> <blockquote> <p>usable ISO at 51200 </p> </blockquote> <p>i do think one has to be realistic about high-ISO settings. if you look at top wildlife photographers and their EXIF settings, they're not shooting at 51,200. it's not really reasonable to expect a D500 to shoot clean at this setting, or an 810 for that matter.</p>

<blockquote> <p> FX and/or DX is a personal choice. However top of the line cameras for action and low light are generally FF.</p> </blockquote> <p>This isn't completely accurate. Firstly, a wildlife photographer might prefer DX because of reach, which isn't an arbitrary concept. In real terms, the 1.5x crop factor means you get longer reach with the same lenses, or you can use shorter lenses and get the same reach as FX. this has practical/economic consequences, since an 80-400 is effectively a 120-600 on DX. A 300/2.8 costs $5500, a 500/4 is $10,300. So the cost savings are not insignificant, as well as weight savings. if the OP already has a 150-600, on DX that effectively becomes a 225-900/5.3-6.3. 900mm @ 6.3 is a lot of reach, and reasonably fast at that focal length. Secondly, the D500 IS a 'top of the line camera for action' in DX format. it has shared AF systems with the D5, fast frame rate, and weather-sealed build. For the price, you could certainly do worse for wildlife. It is true that FF cameras have better low-light performance, but i dont know that i would prioritize that over reach for shooting wildlife. <br> <br> The recommendation of a D5 with d810 would be an expensive one, and largely unnecessary, especially for an inexperienced wildlife shooter. Let's see, you'd be spending around $10,000 on two FX bodies, plus whatever your investment in lenses. You'd have to get longer, more expensive lenses without the benefit of the crop factor. The D5 would be great for action, but the only real benefit over a D500 (for $4700 more) would be low-light performance, and you're actually losing 50% of your effective reach with your current body. The D810 would be unspectactular for wildlife due to its slow frame rate, though it would be a much more useful option for landscape, especially on a tripod.<br> <br> It looks like the OP already has a D7000, that is a solid DX body, although it's been surpassed in performance by D7100, D7200, and D500. Upgrading to a D500 would give more responsive performance, faster FPS, and better AF and metering. if you wanted the benefits of FF low-light performance without breaking the bank, you could add a D750, which has a slightly faster frame rate than the 810. I don't see an especially compelling reason to get a D5+D810 for the OP unless he has money burning a hole in his pocket. But even then, spending less on bodies and investing more in lenses is probably a better long-term strategy.<br> </p>

<p>Better late than never, i suppose. DPReview is claiming their review is more thorough than others which have been published. And they have a lot to say about the dynamic range at ISO 64. </p>