Reichman says N.Americans wedded to their big DSLRs and...

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by RichA, Feb 9, 2014.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Feb 9, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Me Guest

    yes. Don't forget that Reichman also argued strongly that he was
    getting better results from an APS-c Canon D30, at about 3mp - than he
    could get from colour film.
    The problem with this present argument from him is that he considers
    format - APS-c vs (u)4/3 and hardware size as a consequence of format,
    when the reality is that the offerings of u4/3 from Panasonic (and to a
    lesser degree Olympus) are simply better than what's offered in APS-c,
    because only Sony are in the mirrorless APS-c game seriously (and
    they're a general gadget maker - not a camera specialist*), Canon's
    efforts are hapless, and Nikon hasn't made any visible effort at all.
    *OK - Panasonic are also a general gadget maker, but the quality of
    their gadgets is in general, a class or two above Sony - at least in the
    past decade.
     
    Me, Feb 9, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Bowser Guest

    I like his site, but you really need to take what he says with a grain
    of salt. I still remember his review of the Leica M8, where he failed
    to mention the issue with the very weak IR filter that caused
    horrendous color reproduction. However, I agree that for the vast
    majority of shooters who do not make huge enlargements a m4/3 camera
    is plenty. If you shoot action sports, that's different. but I've
    never wanted for anything regarding IQ with my GH3. Nice lenses, too.
     
    Bowser, Feb 9, 2014
    #3
  4. RichA

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    This fellow seems to have done OK with a 30x45 enlargement:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/brb_photography/8450227030/in/set-72157629928336655

    I guess 100 original pixels to the inch is acceptable when the print is
    that large, and being viewed from a bit further away.
    Check out the Olympus offerings--the 45 and 75mm primes seem to be the
    favorites for portraits, and I have heard nothing but good about the
    "pro" grade 12-40mm zoom. A companion "pro" grade 40-150mm is supposed
    to come out soon.
     
    Paul Ciszek, Feb 9, 2014
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    He does go on to stay he believes the new FF Sony's will have the m4/3 people looking over their shoulders, but I think he and others are missing a critical point when it comes to these new, more compact designs and perhaps DSLRs and that is the lack of high-quality slower lenses. The moment someone thinks about better lenses, speed has to automatically go hand-in-hand and that kills the idea of compactness. It's ludicrous. You see m4/3rd shooters crowing about how compact their systems are, then in the same breath demanding f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms. There are a couple examples of where compactness has really paid-off (Pentax's 2 40mm primes, Panasonic's 14mm) but they are few and far between. Really high-quality f/4.0-5.6 zooms would be a good idea as would f/2.0 to f/4.0 primes.
     
    RichA, Feb 9, 2014
    #5
  6. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    Maybe we didn't read the same link?

    "APS-C will find itself monkey-in-the-middle, and MFT may find that its
    calling card, smaller size and lighter weight, has effectively disappeared.
    The new generation of small Full Frame systems will always carry a premium
    price, because large sensors will always remain more expensive to
    manufacture. But I believe that even that disparity will shrink, just as
    Full Frame cameras and lenses are now doing."

    Basically, FF is becoming available in smaller bodies, which makes APS-C
    and MFT redundant, because size were their only advantage.

    My Sony RX1 takes fantastic images and is as small as most compact cameras.
    Prices will drop and no one will buy APS-C/MFT when (if?) they do.
     
    Sandman, Feb 10, 2014
    #6
  7. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 10/02/2014 08:02, Sandman wrote:
    []
    I certainly hope that I will not be forced into buying full-frame. the
    size of APS-C cameras is a major advantage, since it not only applied to
    the cameras but the lenses as well, and the reduction in weight if quite
    significant for some of us. I did look at MFT but, surprisingly, it was
    not significantly smaller and light than APS-C. When I tried a 28-300
    mm full-frame lens (equivalent to the 18-200 I often use), it was much
    too heavy for me.

    Appreciate that others may spend more time at the gym! <G>
     
    David Taylor, Feb 10, 2014
    #7
  8. RichA

    Savageduck Guest

    I am becoming more and more tempted by the Fujifilm APS-C X-PRO1 and
    the growing selection of X mount lenses. These days I just can't see
    being weighed down with my typical DSLR kit when traveling by air. On
    my local, in-state road trips I can load the the car down with
    everything, but when flying, TSA and carry-on weight & size
    restrictions are just unpleasant.
    < http://fujifilm-x.com/x-pro1/en/index.html >
     
    Savageduck, Feb 10, 2014
    #8
  9. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 10/02/2014 10:03, Savageduck wrote:
    []
    Looks good, but what an awful Web site! I couldn't find a
    "specifications" page so I could compare the weight to my D5200. I
    expect the lenses would be similar in size and weight - maybe a little
    smaller. Mostly I use 18-200, sometimes 16-85, sometimes the Tamron
    10-24, and rarely the 35/1.8. All DX. Would be expensive to have to
    buy all those (or similar) again.
     
    David Taylor, Feb 10, 2014
    #9
  10. RichA

    Savageduck Guest

    Here you go, The body weighs 15.9 oz. incl. battery.
    <
    http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_pro1/specifications/
    ....and the XF lens info, no 18-200mm yet. They also have an "M" mound adaptor:
    <
    http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf55_200mmf35_48_r_lm_ois/
     
    Savageduck, Feb 10, 2014
    #10
  11. RichA

    Savageduck Guest

    "M" mount.
     
    Savageduck, Feb 10, 2014
    #11
  12. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    The RX1 has a fixed 35/2 lens and is mirrorless, so it's smaller than most
    APS-C SLR's and rival many MFT cameras in size.

    The 50/1.4 lens for my Nikon is quite slim as well. No one would need to be
    at the gym to carry this with them.

    Sure, there are some wide angle lenses that are quite large, but usually
    it's because they want a large aperture, not only due to the fact that
    they're FF.
     
    Sandman, Feb 10, 2014
    #12
  13. RichA

    Bowser Guest

    I've got the 45, and it's excellent. My other lenses, all Pannys, are
    also excellent. Love that small and light 35-100 2.8.

    And yes, m4/3 can shoot billboard-size photos as long as you keep the
    viewing distance reasonable. Billboards are only 9ppi.
     
    Bowser, Feb 10, 2014
    #13
  14. RichA

    Bowser Guest

    You're ignoring one very important of the size and weight advantage of
    m4/3, one that not even APS-C can match: the size and weight of the
    lenses. FF systems require huge lenses, and there's no getting around
    that. Show me a 70-200 f2.8 lens for FF that isn't huge and doesn't
    weight a ton. Then compare that to the Panny 35-100 f2.8 zoom, which
    is the m4/3 equivilant for angle of view. The FF bodies are getting
    smaller, but the lenses can't really shrink much and will always be
    boat anchors.
     
    Bowser, Feb 10, 2014
    #14
  15. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    No doubt will you save size and weight with a mirrorless APS-C camera like
    the X-Pro1, but the lenses themselves aren't exactly tiny unless you stick
    with the 27mm or 35mm lenses. All telezoom's are pretty huge, like the
    55-200. Even the 56mm prime is quite large.

    So, unless you stick with the pancake-style 27mm lens, you still have a
    lens that builds 76mm to the 42mm body.

    The Sony A7 is full frame and 48mm thick and the 55mm lens is 71mm long.

    Granted, there aren't enough FF E-mount lenses right now to be comparable,
    but that'll change.

    The Nikon DF, which probably is out of the price range for someone looking
    at the X-Pro1, is "only" 66mm thick, and that's with a mirror!

    And, the Leica M is only 42mm thick, mirrorless and full format, so it's
    not like the size of the X-Pro1 is inherent to it being APS-C, but the
    price is, of course. At least for now.
     
    Sandman, Feb 10, 2014
    #15
  16. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    It's about 100 grams lighter. Your 5200 weighs 505g and the Fujifilm X-Pro1
    weighs 400g, both weights are without battery.
    Not as much as you would like.
    You have a Fujinon 55-200/3.5-4.8 lens for the Fujifilm camera, which is
    75x118mm and weih 580g

    On your Nikon, your Tamron 18-200/3.5-6.3 lens is 84x73mm and weigh 423g so
    you've basically earned back the weight advantage of the Fujifilm right
    there.
    Comparable would be the Fujinon 18-55/2.8-4 which is 65x71mm at 310g to
    your Nikkor 16-85/3.5-5.6 which is 72x85mm and weigh 485g, so here Fujinon
    "wins".
    Which is 83x87mm at 370g, no real comparable product for the Fujifilm that
    I could find...
    The APS 35mm is tiny at 70x53mm and 200g, but the Fujinon is 65x55mm at
    187g.
    Indeed. :)
     
    Sandman, Feb 10, 2014
    #16
  17. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 10/02/2014 12:59, Savageduck wrote:
    []
    Thanks. So the weight is not a lot less than the Nikon (19.58 oz), and
    it doesn't have the lens (or lenses) I've become accustomed to using. I
    recall similar issues when I looked at micro 4/3 - not a lot lighter and
    limited lens range compared to Nikon or Canon. Oh well, maybe another year?
     
    David Taylor, Feb 10, 2014
    #17
  18. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    Thanks for the information, however I don't see how a 55-200 is in any
    way equivalent to an 18-200! OK, they have the same maximum focal
    length, but with the Fuji I would have to carry round /two/ lenses, not
    one, and I would miss shots having to chance lenses. My style of
    photography tends to be more "targets of opportunity" rather than
    pre-planned.

    When it comes down to it, at the moment at least, Nikon (and likely
    Canon) have a very well optimised of APS-C cameras and lens range. What
    I actually find more and more, is that the quality of images taken
    either by my iPad or Android 'phone is "good enough" (for posting on
    Twitter, for example), and those are cameras I will have with me more
    often than not. It's becoming a "photo trip" when I take the DSLR. Oh,
    and both those devices upload to my home PC with DropBox, but not the DSLR.
     
    David Taylor, Feb 10, 2014
    #18
  19. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 10/02/2014 08:02, Sandman wrote:
    : []
    : > Basically, FF is becoming available in smaller bodies, which makes APS-C
    : > and MFT redundant, because size were their only advantage.
    : >
    : > My Sony RX1 takes fantastic images and is as small as most compact cameras.
    : > Prices will drop and no one will buy APS-C/MFT when (if?) they do.
    :
    : I certainly hope that I will not be forced into buying full-frame. the
    : size of APS-C cameras is a major advantage, since it not only applied to
    : the cameras but the lenses as well, and the reduction in weight if quite
    : significant for some of us. I did look at MFT but, surprisingly, it was
    : not significantly smaller and light than APS-C. When I tried a 28-300
    : mm full-frame lens (equivalent to the 18-200 I often use), it was much
    : too heavy for me.

    I basically agree. I do indoor event photography; and if you're juggling two
    cameras (pretty much a must for that type of work, IMO), size and weight are
    important. But what worries me about the future of APS-C is manufacturers'
    apparent failure to support their APS-C cameras with professional-quality
    lenses. Canon makes a very decent mid-range zoom, the 17-55mm f/2.8. (It's
    even stabilized, while their very expensive FF mid-range zoom isn't.) But if
    you need something longer on your other camera (and who doesn't?), you have to
    either step up to the FF 70-200, leaving a 15mm coverage gap, or settle for
    the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. The Sigma lens gets very good reviews, but it isn't a
    Canon L, and it hasn't been around long enough to prove that it can stand up
    to the wear and tear.

    I don't know much about Nikon's product line, but I suspect that the situation
    is similar. I know that they make a good 70-200; I'm not aware that they have
    a constant-aperture 50-150.

    So I find myself vowing to buy only FF-capable lenses from now on, just in
    case APS-C dies out or is relegated to mirrorless cameras (and lenses) only.
    It seems like the prudent thing to do.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Feb 14, 2014
    #19
  20. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 14/02/2014 02:24, Robert Coe wrote:
    []
    Bob, perhaps if one is doing professional photography, it's not
    unreasonable to use professional kit - in a very broad brush sense - and
    I can see that that might imply full-frame body and lenses. I'm a hobby
    photographer, so the results from "amateur" lenses (using it in its
    worst meaning) suffice for me. Yes, I can see why you would want larger
    aperture lenses, but could you manage by turning up the ISO instead, or
    is small depth of field also important?

    I think that APS-C will be around as long as I will, but I do see the
    sense in buying only full-frame lenses. If I was taking that long a
    term viewpoint, I might be more tempted towards micro-4/3!
     
    David Taylor, Feb 14, 2014
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.