MikeOxon Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Remember that lenses last a lot longer than digital cameras, so always buy the best you can afford. Take account of build quality as well as optics. Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkeNd Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Remember that lenses last a lot longer than digital cameras, so always buy the best you can afford. Take account of build quality as well as optics. Mike I agree with this totally. I am as sure as I can be that I don't understand the logic of buying a DSLR with it's ability to change lenses quickly and then looking for do-it all lenses like 50-500 (80-800 as 35mm equivalent on a DX body), and even a zoom going to 600 was mentioned (960mmm as 35 mm equivalent). They have to be very compromised designs and if if rated "excellent" in tests it has to be "excellent of their type and price point". Sounds like the sort of this folk do in the USA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 I agree with this totally. I am as sure as I can be that I don't understand the logic of buying a DSLR with it's ability to change lenses quickly and then looking for do-it all lenses like 50-500 (80-800 as 35mm equivalent on a DX body), and even a zoom going to 600 was mentioned (960mmm as 35 mm equivalent). They have to be very compromised designs and if if rated "excellent" in tests it has to be "excellent of their type and price point". Sounds like the sort of this folk do in the USA. Whilst it's true that bayonet mount lenses do change quickly I don't often change them while I'm "out and about". I prefer to fit the lens that I think will do the job and only carry that. So this morning in The New Forest I had a 20mm lens on the front of my D610. I like the discipline of only have one lens - you have to get into a 20mm (or 105 macro etc) way of thinking - of course that may mean that a certain shot eludes you but it's an approach that suits me. As regards zooms - I get excellent results from my 28-300 - which I look on as my G.P. lens - and I certainly don't look on it as compromised when judged alongside say a 105mm prime. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
two tone green Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 If my wife had to carry a multitude of lenses to get the shot she wants she would have given up photography ages ago. Her Nikon 18-300 zoom on her 7100 gives very good results and the extra reach of the 50 to 500 is there should she need it for those little things you just cannot get up close to. I carry one lens, a 18-200 and that's it. No need for anything else really. I like to enjoy my days out and not have to struggle to cope with a back pack full of glass. Why struggle. Yes there are times, places, situations where a fixed focus lens will work better but for general yomping about a good zoom is ideal and the quality is getting better all the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted February 15, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 15, 2015 two tone green, on 15 Feb 2015 - 15:55, said: If my wife had to carry a multitude of lenses to get the shot she wants she would have given up photography ages ago. Her Nikon 18-300 zoom on her 7100 gives very good results and the extra reach of the 50 to 500 is there should she need it for those little things you just cannot get up close to. I carry one lens, a 18-200 and that's it. No need for anything else really. I like to enjoy my days out and not have to struggle to cope with a back pack full of glass. Why struggle. Yes there are times, places, situations where a fixed focus lens will work better but for general yomping about a good zoom is ideal and the quality is getting better all the time. All true. But that 18-200 was a revelation on 12MP, a bit less so on 24. A great holiday lens, I found. We await the imminent announcement of the D7200, but the suspicion is that 24MP is the realistic maximum for an APS-C sensor. Meanwhile Canon's new 5Ds full-frame model is 50MP. That will certainly sort the good glass from the ordinary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
two tone green Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 I use the new Samsung NX1 with the 18 - 200 and get really quite nice results. The camera is getting better and better all the time with support from Samsung being very good. I am watching out for the Nikon 7200 as well for my wife as I think it will have all the things on it that they should have put on the 7100. But what will it do to some of the so called higher models. It is starting to encroach on their territory. Will Nikon actually bring it out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted February 15, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 15, 2015 two tone green, on 15 Feb 2015 - 16:24, said: I am watching out for the Nikon 7200 as well for my wife as I think it will have all the things on it that they should have put on the 7100. But what will it do to some of the so called higher models. It is starting to encroach on their territory. Will Nikon actually bring it out. Nikon is already in bad odour with the DX/APS-C faithful on a couple of counts. It has failed to replace the D300s as the top body, yet that is now effectively 8 years old (i.e. D300) which is a lifetime in digital. The D7100 was under-equipped, so many think, to leave the D300s some headroom. The D7200 needs to show spectacular performance, not least since the new APS-C Canon 7D Mk II runs at 10 fps, which is kinda useful for the sports etc fraternity. Even the D2h I bought in 2004 ran at 8 fps, now nothing in Nikon's DX range can match that. Nikon has tried to move its market to the more profitable FX full-frame models - and this very thread is a testament to how compelling those models can be. Then there is the small matter of DX lenses. Where are the DX primes, which may not matter much to you and me, but certainly affect buying decisions among professionals? Let's see - , Fisheye, 35, 40, er, that's it. Meanwhile Sigma offers an 18-35 f1.8. Unless Nikon wakes up, many of its best - i.e. regular purchase - customers will have gone elsewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
two tone green Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Good assessment of the situation. Fully agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danemouth Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Nikon is already in bad odour with the DX/APS-C faithful on a couple of counts. It has failed to replace the D300s as the top body, yet that is now effectively 8 years old (i.e. D300) which is a lifetime in digital. The D7100 was under-equipped, so many think, to leave the D300s some headroom. The D7200 needs to show spectacular performance, not least since the new APS-C Canon 7D Mk II runs at 10 fps, which is kinda useful for the sports etc fraternity. Even the D2h I bought in 2004 ran at 8 fps, now nothing in Nikon's DX range can match that. Nikon has tried to move its market to the more profitable FX full-frame models - and this very thread is a testament to how compelling those models can be. Then there is the small matter of DX lenses. Where are the DX primes, which may not matter much to you and me, but certainly affect buying decisions among professionals? Let's see - , Fisheye, 35, 40, er, that's it. Meanwhile Sigma offers an 18-35 f1.8. Unless Nikon wakes up, many of its best - i.e. regular purchase - customers will have gone elsewhere. As a Nikon owner for the past 38 years I am in full agreement - I am FX now (D600) but your comment on the position of DX is in my view correct. One American commentator I follow is in agreement see http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/ If Nikon are to retain market share they need to pull out all the stops.. Incidentally the reason I went from DX to FX was that I didn't like the 12 - 24 zoom - with FX the 20 mm prime I had from my film days became useful. again as a wide angle lens. If I carry the full bag it's the D600 with 20mm, 24-120 zoom, 60mm macro and 80-400 mm zoom together with a Zoom H4 recorder and a ton of odd bits and pieces, Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkeNd Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Taking a few of the comments above, I use a D700 FX with Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 AFS and Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 G for about 99% of my photos. Both are sharper at both ends of the zoom ranges than prime lenses - so I don't advocate prime lenses because they really would be hard work. However the zoom ratios of these lenses are just 2.9 and 1.9 respectively. I can accept that an 18-300 lens with a zoom ratio of 16.6 can be a general purpose lens with reasonable performance, but 50-500 does seem unusual to me - as does buying a DSLR and never changing the lens. Oldddudders has it right from my point of view about Nikon's failure to replace the D300S (and I would add the D700 too) and pander to what they call "enthusiast" bodies. Once you get into the swing of it the pro features of both cameras are hard to live without - dedicated buttons for specific functions, ability to have the body ignore the lowest flash synch speed for use on a tripod, etc etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweasel Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 I too,have a Nikon, but an old D80. It does the job I want. However, I've now bought myself a new camcorder,a Canon G25. Still figuring out what it, or I, can do with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Mike Posted February 15, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 15, 2015 but 50-500 does seem unusual to me - as does buying a DSLR and never changing the lens. The Sigma 50-500 has been around in various guises for ages now. It tends to be popular not as default all purpose lens (far too large and heavy!) but because of the upper end range for a reasonably sensible price eg for wildlife. Cheers, Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PhilH Posted February 18, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 18, 2015 Interesting comments re lenses above. I've been through the whole gamut of carting lenses round, often missing the shot I want whilst changing lenses. Now I've gone back old school on the D7100, mainly using just a Nikon 50mm f1.8, which is as sharp as a tack. It's taught me a lot about composition etc., I find I have to work harder to get the shot I want. Obviously it's not any good for wildlife etc., but I'm enjoying the challenge of 'back to roots' photography. For fun I will go out with a Samyang 8mm fisheye...for me and a lot of others the best value lens anywhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted February 18, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 18, 2015 About 1970 I bought a fisheye attachment, which screws into the front of a standard lens. I still have it, and can use it on older lenses, which have smaller front-threads. While probably not a patch on the Samyang, the circular pics still have a sense of drama. Making a determined effort to use one fixed lens on a day out certainly acts as a good discipline in terms of composition. It may also mean you get more exercise, too, rather than zooming in here and there! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
two tone green Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Nikon D7200 has just been announce by them https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/ci/documents/view/1/AvNk~wqEDv8S~xb~Gv9s~yJTqT8qzmf70s9PZz7~Pv_G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkeNd Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I keep seeing this thread when I am searching for something new in the photography section. Going back to basics (I know the OP has already decided and bought a new camera) this seems simply to be, in the case of say Train Photography which is more relevant perhaps on this forum for future reference, to be an issue of Full Frame DSLR vs comparable generation APS-C DX DSLR. Having owned and used both formats I would say that a low noise Full Frame DSLR produces far superior results to an APS-C crop frame DSLR of comparable generation. Lens requirements are more demanding at the wide angle end of the spectrum though and with full frame I do find I need an 18-35 (not to be confused with an 18-55 kit lens on a Dx camera which is effectively 27-52) and a 24-70 to photograph trains. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkeNd Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Just seeing this thread still languishing here prompts me to add a postscript. After about 5 years shooting RAW files quite happily on a 12 Mp Nikon D700 and an iMac with 2 Gb of standard memory and it's original Leopard operating system, I have just switched to a Nikon D810. Despite Macs not requiring the huge memory capacity Windows PCs devour I was nevertheless taken aback by the amount of work required for the iMac to manage the new camera. Even shooting JPEGs to start with even a simple rotate edit blacked out the screen, whilst OSX had to be updated through 4 generations in order to run a version of Apple Aperture 3 which contained the required Digital RAW converter for the D810. Every other piece of software on the iMac had to be updated too which took a lot of time. After some research I found a manufacturer of memory chips that supplies 6 Gb of memory (yes really a 4+2 configuration) that registers and works superbly - switching the chips was a doddle. The 36 Mp resolution of the camera is so high that it will clearly show the tiniest subject movement at shutter speeds slower than 1/125 second - even a crawling loco really needs 1/250 second. I have set 1/125 as the slowest shutter speed in the custom settings. All factors to be aware of. I am delighted with the Nikon D810 with it's pro spec body (compared with the D610 and D750) but it took a full week of work to get it going in the manner of the existing D700. Something to bear in mind if you don't have the spare time us retired guys have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danemouth Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I use a D600 shooting 12 bit raw and editing in Lightroom 6. Recently changed from a Windows 7 32bit laptop with 4 gb memory to a Windows 8.1 64 bit laptop with 16gb of memory. The performance of the old machine was acceptable but the new machine is lightning fast in comparison. Additional memory makes all the difference. Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithHC Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Going back to write speeds. I have a D7100 and compared to my D90 it seamed slower by a long margin. However I now shoot in RAW but have read that sports photographers shoot in Jpeg and this increases the write speed. On my D90 I shot only in Jpeg. Keith HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkeNd Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Going back to write speeds. I have a D7100 and compared to my D90 it seamed slower by a long margin. However I now shoot in RAW but have read that sports photographers shoot in Jpeg and this increases the write speed. On my D90 I shot only in Jpeg. Keith HC You are right to shoot in RAW Keith. For the one week it took me to upgrade the iMac's operating system to be able to decode the D810's RAW files I tried JPEGs for the first time in years and years. Now it depends wether or not you edit your photos but I found that the amount of shadow and highlight detail a JPEG dumps even at the highest quality is astoundingly high. I would never go back to JPEGs and anyone who says they can't tell the difference should have gone to SpecSavers. But back to my main point. I had researched it all before but if my 2008 iMac had not had an Intel Core 2 Duo processor then to use RAW files from the Nikon D810 would have cost me a new computer to add to the price of the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Woolford Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 I use a D600 shooting 12 bit raw and editing in Lightroom 6. Recently changed from a Windows 7 32bit laptop with 4 gb memory to a Windows 8.1 64 bit laptop with 16gb of memory. The performance of the old machine was acceptable but the new machine is lightning fast in comparison. Additional memory makes all the difference. Dave I have to agree entirely with this, I purchased a new ultrabook to replace my ageing laptop to use for my university work at the beginning of this year which has become a place to store my images and to do editing work too. Since switching to shooting in raw with my d7100 the 4gb of ram is just not up to the job. There has been a very noticeable decline in performance, even with loading images to view them as thumbnails; let alone trying to work with the files. I am seriously considering getting a 5k imac as a desktop computer, as I can get a student discount which would allow me to upgrade from the standard spec and still be below the rrp. A comparable windows pc would cost around £800-1000 to build but the cost of such a high resolution display is the killer, pushing me towards an imac. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Interesting points made above about RAW. I have my D610 switched to save photos in RAW format. Apart from the improvement in image quality this has two consequences. Firstly the file sizes are substantially bigger and that results in much longer loading times for each shot in Lightroom (V7). Whereas large/fine JPEGs load almost instantaneously NEF RAW files do take some time to do so. When I bought my D600 (later replaced under warranty by Nikon for a D610) I was advised that it was a better purchase for me than a D800 - this opinion was based on file size and it's knock-ons. The news that "Canon's new 5Ds full-frame model is 50MP" leaves me completely cold. The resolution of the D610 is quite stunning. Even with the ISO setting boosted to 800 or even 1600 the photos of butterflies that I have been getting are superb - even when these are subject to cropping in Lightroom. In my experience it's a rare wildlife shot that doesn't need cropping. With a macro lens focussed close DoF is very limited and is a much greater brake on image quality than any other factor. Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkeNd Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Re Chaz point above. I am finding that it is impossible to tell the difference on an iMacs screen between an image that has been RAW processed in Aperture 3 taken with my 12 Mp D700 full frame and a similar shot from the new 36 Mp D810 - just considering resolution alone even using the 24-70 f/2.8 lens. In fact the D810 demands a lot more care not to show up minute camera or subject movement. The D810 advantages are its focus speed and tracking accuracy, limitless high ISO ability, and 14.5 stops dynamic range. Where the high resolution scores I am finding is that it virtually makes zooms redundant - I can just keep cropping into ever smaller bits of a frame. I am a wide angle user for 99% of my shots and I am thinking that the new 20 f/1.8 prime with its virtually zero distortion to correct can easily do the job of a 20-50 zoom. As far as RAW file sizes are concerned I am adopting a "medium format film philosophy" with my shooting aided by the need for greater care with each shot. Three hours on the DFR leaves me coming home with 40 frames of which I select about 15 as keepers when processed. This is in contrast to the often heard claims to have come back from a day on a Heritage Railway with 784 photos - whatever would you do with them all ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 As far as RAW file sizes are concerned I am adopting a "medium format film philosophy" with my shooting aided by the need for greater care with each shot. Three hours on the DFR leaves me coming home with 40 frames of which I select about 15 as keepers when processed. This is in contrast to the often heard claims to have come back from a day on a Heritage Railway with 784 photos - whatever would you do with them all ? I quite agree. However when photographing wildlife I find I do take a lot of shots, butterflies and birds are just not as predictable as trains. When I have put them into the computer I do a fairly ruthless pruning, ditching any duplicates, any that have technical shortcomings etc. I once took over 500 shots of a bittern (the bird) but that was justified by being a rather rare opportunity - and I did eventually prune drastically to keep only the best few dozen. Lightroom's compare facility makes this easier. I bought a 20mm F1.8 lens and have to say it is a quite outstanding piece of kit. I have always liked 20 mill' lenses ever since I owned a Zeiss Flektogon which I mounted on the front of a Pentax SP (back in the sixties). I love the way it draws you into scene and the DoF is so generous when stopped down that foreground and background are sharp and can be related in a shot. Personally I wouldn't want to crop a 20mm shot over much (although I understand your point about cropping). Seems to me the appeal of this type of lens is in it's expansive view. Chaz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkeNd Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Thanks Chaz - agree with all you say. I use the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 18-35 G AFS on the D810. The 24-70 is a bit of a lump which I didn't notice so much on the heavier D700 but it's performance and its rendering of colour with its Nano coating is truly beguiling. The new 18-35 G is very sharp but colour without Nano coating is not as "preferable" in my eyes. The 20 f/1.8 reviews are great, it's Nano coated, and the price is now down to £575 even at Grays of Westminster. Tempting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.