fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell
1
       2       3       4       end
   

Archive 2011 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup
  
 
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


I shoot Nikon professionally and own D3's and have a number of the bigger/faster lens like the 24-70. 70-200, 200-400 etc. All fine and good for paid assignments but its always been a bit more than I've wanted to take with me for my personal shooting, travel etc.
Even got a D700 for a bit and while a nice camera, again ended up pretty heavy etc.


So I've been trying various other systems for the past year or more, such as NEX, m4/3, various compacts, even a Leica M9.

All basically looking for the ideal combination of size and weight plus image quality and also some versatility and cost being factors as well. I mean as much as I did like my M9 by the time I added an 18mm for wide, 28 and 50 for normal and then a 90 it was like a $15000 system and given the nice brass construction a fairly heavy, though compact bag. Great shots overall but just not really much bang for the buck.

m4/3 as well had some nice size/weight and good selection of lenses but just never really loved the overall IQ or dynamic range. Always seemed a step above a compact to me.

NEX certainly had some nice IQ and the camera itself was great for a size standpoint but the lack of lenses is a real issue. Fun system for a little walk around with a 35mm MF lenses or two, but if you actually want to cover some real focal lengths your carrying just as many lenses and need adapters etc. Basically being APS-C your just not going to get smaller lenses than an APS-C DSLR and as such sort of defeats the rest of the benefits of the system.


So anyways.....

Given the latest APS-C DSLR's I've been seeing images from, things look like they've come a long ways. K5, D7k/D5100, etc all seem to have some really impressive IQ, lack of noise and DR. Far better than anything I've ever seen or owned before in crop sensor bodies.

This has be thinking maybe going for a D5100 and a couple lenses.

Seems like a great camera for its price point, IQ seems like the best APS-C has to offer right now, and its even got the cool flip out LCD which I've come to love on m4/3 for low level landscape shooting.

Given that I have other Nikon gear already as well, it would make a nice backup, or something I could throw on the 200-400 for extra tele reach with the crop factor etc so that sort of makes it even make it a good move from a business standpoint.


Really though, it would be more for personal use, travel etc.

I'm thinking the D5100, with a 10-24 or 12-24, 35mm f1.8 and something like a 55-200.

With the wide zoom I'd have both the ultra wide (which I currently don't have due to selling my 14-24 due to its size and just not using it enough to warrant the price) and also the more normal focal lengths of up to 35mm covered.

So basically that one lens would give me the 18/24/35 focal lengths (I think in terms of prime focal lengths, forgive me)

Then the 35mm would serve as the 50mm normal equiv, fine for lower light, general walk around snapshots etc

Lastly something like the 55-200 for those somewhat rare tele shots that I don't do a lot of but never know when your on vacation and want a compressed landscape or something.


Any thoughts ?

Is the Nikon 10-24 a better buy overall than something like the Tokina 12-24 ?

I really don't need that ultra wide, and would like it to also perform well towards 24mm, so don't want something thats great at its widest setting but then crap at 24mm as if I only have the 35mm in by bag as well, I would rely on the wide zoom for a bit

How about the 55-200 or 55-300 I did own a 70-300 VR years ago and it was fantastic, even on FX, but its getting a little heavy, and again, I'm going for a lightweight setup.

Any better optics on the 55-200 over the 55-300 ?? From what I've read browsing the net both of these are pretty well regarded, far better than you'd expect from the pricepoint, yet having been away from DX for a few years, I really haven't followed these type of lenses so I don't know whats good and whats not.


Any other lenses worth looking at ?

I know there are lots of 16/17-xx zooms that are probably nice, but really I'd still want something wider and carrying two zooms with such overlap doesn't really make sense to me.

I think getting 18-35 suits be better with a 50mm prime than a 24-70ish range overall


Thanks for any feedback or insights anyone can share.
Jul 16, 2011 at 02:29 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


Oh, also as for a wide zoom, really like the ability to use filters (issue I had with my 14-24 and also 7-14mm on m4/3)

Doing some landscapes I like being able to use a ND, polarizer etc (yes I know, not that useful for ultra wide skies but I like it for color saturation, cutting glare on wet rocks etc, not just blue skies)

As such, lenses like the Sigma 8-16mm which I'm sure are quite good, really wouldn't work for me due to their inability to take filters

Also was interested in the 11-16 but since it wouldn't focus on the D5100 have to rule that out.

Could go for a D7k which as the focus motor, but I think I'd really like the flip out screen for framing low angle shots and such.

Given I already have D3's as well, the added AF etc of the D7k isn't really an issue as I've got the high performance needs well covered

Thanks
Jul 16, 2011 at 02:32 PM
theSuede
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


The difference in weight/size between the 5100 and the 7000 is actually quite noticable. If compact/light is the goal, the 5100 is definitely better. I've had both, at the same time.

Regaring the choice of glass, the two longer choices (35 + 55-200) are more than ok. The 55-300 is a bit better than the 55-200, especially around the 150-200mm region - but it's also bigger. Worth the money - but I don't know if you'll find it worth the size/weight. It would depend on what tele ranges you use the most.

The wide - UW zoom - no opinion. There are people out ther much more competent to make a practical choice here than me. :-) 50mm tends to be the lower limit of my focal lengths to bring along.
Jul 16, 2011 at 02:40 PM
dj dunzie
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


The exact thing you are contemplating is the very reason I own a D5000, 28-75/f2.8 Tamron and 70-300VR. That is my lightweight travel / throwaround kit. There's times when it sits on a shelf for long periods of time, but when I need it, it's great to have. I would think the D5100 is only better in most ways, although similar in stature and feature set despite the newer sensor. Personally, I could never live with the kit lenses, so I went with a fast f2.8 but small 28-75 Tamron, and the 70-300VR to me is the best value in a longer lens option, and still relatively lightweight. Yeah, I don't have the ultra-wide covered off - but when I want that I can take my 14-24 or 15 with me. I personally don't like the idea of buying DX-specific lenses anymore because it limits the use for me too much. The 12-24 Sigma is full frame, accepts filters on DX with the hood cover on, and offers decent bang for the buck if you hadn't considered it. It isn't f2.8, which may or may not concern you in an ultra-wide. I'd be more tempted to go with the 16-35 than the 10-24 if in your shoes, but that's just me. The 10.5 is an outstanding fun option on DX as well.

Since guys are visually driven, this might interest you :

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m70/dj_dunzie/Camera%20Gear/D3SD510024-7028-75compare.jpg

Good luck!
Jul 16, 2011 at 03:01 PM
Ruahrc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


Given your experience with the high end bodies, you might find you prefer the d7000 over the 5100 because it will allow you to operate more naturally when transitioning between the two sets of kit.

The d5100 lacks a top LCD, as well as some hardware buttons- which means you'll be diving into the menus to change things you probably are used to just adjusting via the hardware buttons on the body.

Also, the viewfinder on the d7000 is going to be superior to the 5100, pentaprism vs. pentamirror. Coming from the large and beautiful viewfinders of your high end kit, you may want to preserve that experience as much as possible by sticking with the d7000?

For the UWA, I'd go for the Nikon 10-24. Personally I'd prefer having the extra 2mm on the wide end. I have the Nikon 12-24 which is outstanding at 24mm, and I think the 10-24 behaves similarly (it's design seems inherited from the 12-24).

Norman
Jul 16, 2011 at 03:04 PM
firewireguy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


A D5100 or 3100 with a 18-55VR and a 55-200mm lens would be an ideal travel kit for me. Those two little lenss are great performers! Add a 35mm 1.8 or sigma 30mm 1.4 or 50mm 1.[8|4] and you'll have a great kit.
Jul 16, 2011 at 03:11 PM
davenfl
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


Millsart I think your thoughts on getting a D5100 are dead on, wonderful little camera, great image quality including a pretty nice implementation of "usable HDR" capabilities and some pretty incredible color and IQ. I totally agree with Suede's thoughts on the Nikkor 53-300, it is a super lens. I would put one more thought forward and that would be the Tamron 28-300 DI VC. Frankly it is a great walkaround lens that works for FF and DX and has a built-in motor. I originally got an old pair of these (one Canon, one Nikon) for use on my D700/D2H/D3's and my Canon 1d3/7D/5d2's and was very pleased. A short time ago I got the new VC variant for my Nikon's and it is just great. Thom Hogan uses it as a walkaround, not that it matters but I think he also has writeups on the lens. Love the image DJ posted, that kind of says it all doesn't it.

Dave
Jul 16, 2011 at 03:20 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


I did some real thought to the wider FX zooms, and 16-35 would be a nice overall lens to have in the kit, but sort of the way I reasoned it is that I can basically get something like a D5100 and 10-24 or Tokina 12-24 etc for roughly what I sold my 14-24 for and gain the addition of another body as well.

As great a 16-35 or 17-35 f2.8 would be on the FX, it still really wouldn't do me much good for travel/personal shooting because I wouldnt' want to take the FX body with it.

Now I do think spending too much on a DX only lens seems a little silly for me in most cases, I wouldn't for example buy a 17-55 f2.8 Nikon at over $1000.

With the wide angle though, the fact its DX I dont think would be a huge drawback because it would of course work for the lightweight travel needs I'm after, and still be useable for my professional work in those rare times I do need a wider shot.

I could stick with my usual 24-70 and 70-200 combo and a added d5100 with the wide would fit in pretty well.

I think the flip out LCD also really adds a lot to the wide angle for allowing things like overhead crowd shots at the start of races, shots from stages etc.

All just purely speculation so far at this point though.

I do the one crop body also does make a bit of sense as well from the standpoint of an added teleconverter for those shots where 400mm and 1.4x TC on FX is still a little short

Add in that 1.5x extra crop factor, and what looks like pretty good high ISO (not up to FX standards but good for APS-C im thinking) and it could be nice for shots of coaches across the sidelines, wildlife etc.

Basically I guess in some ways I'm trying to rationalize from a business sense that I wouldn't just be spending $2k or so on a casual/travel DX setup, but also adding some added benefit to my professional shooting needs.


You do bring up a good point regarding the VF's as well Norman! Being used to FX viewfinders I'm hoping the rather tiny DX one on the D5100 won't kill me to use it. D7k does seem to have a better one, but I wonder if it really is that noticeable ?

Overall I do like an OVF over the EVF's of the GH2 etc. Something about looking at a display with my eye, even a good one, just doesn't work for me. Just never looks that natural or comfortable so I do think any OVF would be preferable to that.


I guess its too bad Nikon didn't add the flip out LCD to the D7k then it would be an easy choice. As it stands, its a little better overall camera, vs a camera that has a feature I think would be pretty useful.

Granted I realize from past live view experience that it can be a bit slow, but for shooting something like a waterfall, hardly an issue I don't think. Sadly m4/3 was great in that the AF was as quick on the LCd as the EVF so that does spoil you a bit
Jul 16, 2011 at 03:29 PM
joanlvh
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


for pure fun, a D5100 and a 55mm f2.8 !


Jul 16, 2011 at 03:34 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


Dave,

How do you think something like the newest 28-300 works vs a 55-2/300 over the same range ?

I've used the so called superzooms ages ago and they were always pretty poor. I'm sure things may have changed a bit though in the past few years.

I've always experienced that less zoom range on a given lens usually leads to better quality too. Easier to make a 55-300 range than trying to squeeze 28-300 into it, but who knows if that still holds true.


As a whole though, I've never really been all that into the wide range zooms just because they are a bit slow, and never quite liked the overall look or rendering of those type of lenses.

I'm thinking for me, something like the 35mm f1.8 could work better as I can shoot with a bit shallower DOF and what I'd guess would be better overall optics.

With my Leica, and then NEX, I got pretty spoiled by the overall looking of lenses like the Zeiss 25 and 35mm ZM and their amazing wide open sharpness. I do realize their are Zeiss for Nikon, but given the $1000+ per lens price tags and being MF only, I just don't think its very good bang for the buck for me.

I could afford it I guess, but on the other hand, buying a $200 lens with AF sure does beat a $1500 lens. Just have to remember the overall big picture of what I'm looking for, what I'm doing with the photos etc. Easy to get caught up in wanting "the best" on internet forums, but then when out taking travel snaps with the family that MF only uberlens leads to feeling rushed as you trying to focus carefully etc while everyone else is a block ahead of you already or going into the restaurant without you lol.


I am sad to see Nikon doesn't have any short DX tele though. They have a 85mm f1.8 but its AF-D

Did see the 60mm f2.8 Macro. Anyone have experience with this one ??

I've usually found macro lenses sort of slow to focus but having a 90mm f2.8 equiv prime paired up with the 35mm f1.8 and a wide zoom could make a nice overall city/street shooting kit.

Little pricey at around $500 though, and given I don't really do macro, flowers etc, might not make a lot of sense for me, just as the Panny 45mm f2.8 macro I had in m4/3 didn't really seem worth $800, though I did like the focal length

Choice, choices, choices....
Jul 16, 2011 at 03:41 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


I don't think it is worth a few g or a even a few 100 g to lose the front+rear controls and the AF motor. 3K or 5K series body + lens are not exactly pocketable in any case.

EBH
Jul 16, 2011 at 03:48 PM
M635_Guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


I think the 18-200 is a really nice lens. Gives you a ton of flexibility. If I had the budget and to do it over again, my travel kit would be a 10-24 and a 28-300 (longer with not much more size, and seems to be rated better for sharpness, etc) to go with the 35 1.8 I have.

Here are a couple shots I took with my 18-200:

First day I had it:

Facing the Hill by e24mpwr, on Flickr
105mm @ f/10 (blew the focus a little, but still looks good, and was my fault)


Beach at dawn at the Rio de Janeiro Sheraton II by e24mpwr, on Flickr
18mm @ f/8


It the 28-300 improves on that, I want it!



Edited on Jul 16, 2011 at 04:16 PM · View previous versions
Jul 16, 2011 at 04:09 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


Another option to consider is your D700 with a 28-300 zoom. It's a fairly new lens by Nikon made to be the FX "super-zoom". Decent performance for what it is according to the reviews. And a lot less $$ laid out than buying a new format (i.e. DX). Get yourself a 50 f/1.8 if you need the speed on occasion.
Jul 16, 2011 at 04:12 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


EB-1 wrote:
I don't think it is worth a few g or a even a few 100 g to lose the front+rear controls and the AF motor. 3K or 5K series body + lens are not exactly pocketable in any case.

EBH


What about the flip out LCD though ? Its also about $400+ dollars difference as well which isn't insignificant.

I'm a bit torn overall because on one hand, I don't really care that much about the added controls etc, because I don't think for the type of usage I have planned it would really matter. I'll probably just be shooting in Av mode from a travel tripod and just need to be able to dial in some EC as needed. If it takes a second button push to do that not too big of deal.

I mean, if it was going to be my first or only camera, then I think the D7k would make a lot more sense, but I imagine that either of them would probably pale overall compared to the D3 I'm used to shooting with.

I'm really glad to see RRS has a L bracket for the D5100 that allows the lcd to flip out (a design I built myself for a bracket on my Gh1, though theirs looks much nicer and more finished)


I guess overall it probably makes the most sense to start with the D5100 and if I find I'm lacking on controls, I could exchange it and spend the extra cash on the D7k.

I did have a D300 once and really found it was sort of heavy, not much lighter than the D700 I switched it out for.

D5100 reviews I've been reading have been saying people find it surprisingly light and compact for a DSLR which sounds great.

I've got no issues hiking up and down fairways on a golf course with a 400 2.8 and a 20lb backpack when I'm getting paid, but when its just for my own shooting, every pound I can shave really does matter.

Maybe I just need to hit the gym some will say, but I find a 4lb shoulder bag so much eaiser to walk around with than a 7lb bag. 3lbs isn't much but if your wearing it around sightseeing the less burden the better.

Of course there is a minimum one must be willing to carry.

I've got a LX5 and G12, both of which are very nice for compacts but if your actually gettig up early to shoot a sunrise etc, the overall quality of the 10meg small sensor files just doesn't quite give me the DR or overall tonality I'd like.

I think this latest 16.2 meg Sony sensor though looks fantastic in what I've seen people able to achieve with it.




Jul 16, 2011 at 04:13 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


Got to say I'm really impressed with the 28-300 FX zoom as well. Didn't even know that one came out!

Back when I shot Canon we had a 28-300 but it was nearly 4lbs and cost around $2400. Amazing Nikon built one thats only about 2lbs and under a grand.

Certainly worth thinking about as it would make more sense than a 70-300 VR which weights nearly as much, or even a DX 18-200 type lens.

Nice to have something I could use on my FX cameras for daytime shooting, and also that would fill a good range on a DX body........

55-200 though at 11oz certainly does have its advantages in terms of weight though as well, especially as I'm really not that much of a tele shooter.

Not sure how often I'd want to carry something like a 28-300 unless I knew I wanted to be shooting on the longer end.

Wonder how it compares with the 55-200 ? Probably being FX it could have better corners, but at the same time, being an 11x zoom, it might not be as stellar optically as a 4x zoom......


I think I'm 100% on getting the 35mm f1.8 DX at any rate so far.

Still torn between the Nikon 10-24, 12-24 or the Tokina 12-24 II (unless I go for a D7k which would also add the 11-16 as an option) for the wide end

Then on the longer end of things, I guess theres the 55-200 and 55-300 for DX or the 28-300/70-300 FX lenses. Lots of trade offs and pros/cons for both there.
Jul 16, 2011 at 04:38 PM
theSuede
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


You'll have to decide... Optical performance or weight/size. In the 150mm+ end, size is not negotiable. Mother nature isn't going to run and hide for quite a long while yet - if you want performance, you'll need to carry some lbs.

From my own perspective (I don't have the D700 anymore) the newer D5100 and D7000 DX bodies actually trump the 12MP FX bodies for pure static picture quality at the lowest ISOs. You do need sharp lenses to get the most out of them though. I'd say the "break even" point is somewhere between ISO400 and ISO800, then the added amount of pixels are needed to average out the worse per-pixel performance. At ISO3200, the 12MP D700 has more actually usable resolution than the 16MP D5100.

Your original plan seems like the most sound to me. Just find a good W-UW zoom, and you're home free regarding the project parameters you established in the first post.

I actually left the D3x at home during my last trip, since it wasn't a "photography" trip. You have to concede some things to family and leisure too... And since I didn't want to bring my spanking new D7000 or my loaner D5100 (we were going deep into the south American djungle...) I opted for the D90 + 18-105 + 50/1.8 (D-version, this was just before the G got out) and a 70-300. I did miss an U-UW zoom for the days we spent downtown Buenos Aires though.
Jul 16, 2011 at 05:12 PM
RRRoger
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


I have gone to D7000 bodies for my Event business because of the weight.
I can no longer hold a D3 with Pro Glass for 8 hours.

When I went down to my local camera store, they got out a D3100, D5100, and D7000 and put them on the counter.
Hands on is so great!
I went home with the D5100.
I had already tried a D3100 (too small, & too light for me to hold steady.
The D5100 articulating LCD is way better than I expected.
Easy to use and strong connection.
For my Video it is a must. Also the D5100 shoots HD 1080 at 30fps.
This is now also my dedicated trip and hiking camera.

I bought a second D7000 for Events simply because the multi-selector does not lock.
No problem when you are not machine gunning an Event,
No problem on hikes, and no problem when shooting a D-movie.

I have an AF-S Nikkor 10-24, 35mm f/1.8, and 28-300 in the travel bag and can carry any of these lens in my jacket pocket.

I get spectacular pictures when I use a TriPod or MonoPod.
The Sensor is not as forgiving as a D3 so I suggest you use one or expect to work on your hand holding technique.
Jul 16, 2011 at 07:01 PM
thedruid
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


I went with a D7K (on my second one) and as stated above it does not suffer any poor technique and the 16mp DX sensor demands great glass, kinda defeats the purpose of small.
Jul 16, 2011 at 07:14 PM
millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


thedruid wrote:
I went with a D7K (on my second one) and as stated above it does not suffer any poor technique and the 16mp DX sensor demands great glass, kinda defeats the purpose of small.


Do you find the pixel density so high that you feel any of the consumer zooms just aren't going to produce acceptable results ?

I've been seeing what I think are pretty good results from people, some even using the kit lenses, but as with the D3x, I did that certain models can be more demanding optically than others.

Really don't wan't to buy a $800 D5100 only to need to put $1500+ lenses on it like the 35mm f1.4 G. That would sort of defeat the point of a lightweight/affordable travel/casual rig.

Nothing again the high end primes of course, I had the full set of the PC-E's which were amazing, but carrying those 3 lenses along with a D700 body just was too much weight in the bag.
Jul 16, 2011 at 07:52 PM
snapsy
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup


The D5000 and 35mm f/1.8 has been my everyday carryaround camera for a year. And I do mean every single day. It's an awesome combo with stellar IQ that's worth the IQ advantage over the smaller 4/3 systems esp in regards to dynamic range. Also if a camera isn't pocketable then the difference in size+weight between a 4/3 and D5000/D5100 is insignificant for my uses (hiking, carryaround). The 18-105mm kit is a great match as well.

I recently bought a D5100, which IMO is a step-down in build quality vs. the D5000 but has 2 stops better DR, a much better LCD, and most important for me, a non-interpolated Live View that is usable for manual focusing unlike the D5000/D90 implementations.

Here are a few D5100 snaps with the 18-105mm:

http://horshack.smugmug.com/Other/SanFrancisco/i-Sq7KP9z/0/X2/sf109-XL.jpg
http://horshack.smugmug.com/Other/SanFrancisco/i-K6mnXS9/0/X2/sf110-XL.jpg
http://horshack.smugmug.com/Other/SanFrancisco/i-G4xbDbJ/0/X2/sf103-XL.jpg
http://horshack.smugmug.com/Nature/Lake-Tahoe/i-TtDMmp6/0/L/tahoe421-XL.jpg
Jul 16, 2011 at 08:07 PM
1
       2       3       4       end
FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       4       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account
Reset passwordNo account? Register