Bit of an update for everyone ( not that I expect mainly were on the edge of their seats though )
Checked out another camera at the local dealer and it indeed did produce a sharper file (though I couldn't a/b it with mine on the same subjects) than the body I had first received. I think there might be some issue with the sensor plane not being right because it wasn't simply a missed focus with a different point sharp, but nothing was really crtically sharp. Overall the IQ is good on the new body, but I think the FX bodies still do seem to render a bit more per pixel sharpness, perhaps due to a weaker AA filter. Noise levels weren't quite as low as I was expecting but still very good for APS-C. Not quite the major leap forward over the 12 meg D300s/90 though, but did look cleaner at ISO1600.
Interestingly enough, while I went to check out the new D5100 body, I ended up coming home with a m4/3 GH2 which they just happened to have gotten in and for quite a steal of a price.
Never was fully satisfied with m4/3 in the past but the new Gh2 actually looks pretty good with much lower noise levels and quite good resolution when shot RAW. I was impressed with what I was seeing in reviewing the files and while its still not perfect, overall the system size won me over and I went back and picked it up.
d5100 body alone is nice and compact but the overall system size with the 10-24, 18-55, 35 f1.8 and 55-200 was still a bit heavy. Can't exactly walk around with a couple of lenses in the jacket pocket as easily as you can with the 14 and 20mm pancakes for m4/3 which are hardly bigger than a lenscap.
Also I was a little disappointed with the lack of faster primes that I could actually use on the d5100 as I learned that none of the older ones will even meter. Whats with that I don't really mind MF using an older lens but why cant it meter ?
There isn't anything wider than the 35mm f1.8 DX lens and thats only a 50mm equiv.
I've got the Oly 12mm f2.0 which is a 24mm f2 equiv for m4/3 on order now from when I sent the d5100 back to b&h as part of an exchange.
I in no way think the d5100 is a bad camera, but overall for me I think it turned out not to be a perfect fit and the issues I had with the first one really may of been a blessing in disguise.
Nikon really needs to come out with a couple more fast yet affordable DX primes like the 35mm 1.8 or the new 50mm f1.8. THose lenses are spot on but what does a DX user do for wider glass than 50mm ?
What if you want a DX 24 or 28mm prime ? There is nothing
Same if you want a shorter telephoto. 85mm f1.8 AF-D seems nice but it won't work on the D5100 and the 60mm and 85mm macro's are a bit pricey and slow.
Great if you want a macro lenses but what if you just want a fast yet cheap basicaly 85mm lens that will AF and thats f1.8 ? Out of luck
Kind of disappointing really and I hope Nikon follows up updating some of the older AF-D primes
Overall the IQ is good on the new body, but I think the FX bodies still do seem to render a bit more per pixel sharpness, perhaps due to a weaker AA filter. Noise levels weren't quite as low as I was expecting but still very good for APS-C. Not quite the major leap forward over the 12 meg D300s/90 though, but did look cleaner at ISO1600.
SNIP
Actually, the D700 is known for a rather strong AA filter - my D300 gave better looking per-pixel sharpness than my D700 does. Perhaps what's happening is that the D7000/D5100 sensor is out-resolving the lenses, thus it does not appear as sharp on a per-pixel basis compared to a 12MP FX sensor - which has quite a bit lower absolute resolution (pixel pitch).
The strong AA filter of the D700 has been one of my few issues with the camera (that and the type I CF slot and the non-point-to-point USB connection and the somewhat loud shutter). I look forward to a higher res D700 replacement (16 or 18MP would be great).
M635_Guy wrote:
I think the 18-200 would have solved some of your multiple-lens issues. I would have really liked to see this experiment go a little longer...
I think the 18-200 would of worked pretty well as an all around "walk around" lens, but the thing is, you still need a wide if you want to be able to shooter wider than 27mm, so then your still carrying two simply bulky zooms, and are still going to want a faster prime or two in the bag as well if your like me and enjoy some fixed focal lengths.
35mm f1.8 DX is of course fantastic in everyway, size, performance and most of all cost, but if you want to pair it with another prime or two there just isn't anything. Sigma 20mm f1.8 would me a good option perhaps but it won't AF. Nikon 85mm f1.8 would make a nice longer end short portrait option but again, wont AF.
There is the new 50mm 1.8 but does one really need a 35 and a 50 in the bag ? Sort of close in focal length for me. I'd like something like a 35 and a 85 but just no choices except that 85mm f3.5 macro which is a little slower than I'd like and also your payiing for a macro lenses which I don't want, I just want a fast 85
Gh2 isn't better than the d5100 in IQ by any means, but its not really much worse. I'm impressed with how far m4/3 has come in that regard. The overall ergonomics of the camera are a bit better as well. Really large VF, a control for every feature you would want, and you can even move the AF point on the screen by touching it. Thought that would be dumb but its actually really pretty useful and quick. Shot to shot time is faster, bracketing is far wider, and theres no performance difference between the LCD or the EVF. No shot lag etc.
Again, D5100 is clearly better in terms of IQ no debate there, but the gap narrowed enough to where the size and features on the GH2 made up for it, at least in some ways that are important to me.
Everyone is different though and one size doesn't fit all so really have to explore all the different optins, be it NEX, m4/3, d7k or d5100 etc. All have their strengths and weakness based upon what your aftr
I don't really mind MF using an older lens but why cant it meter ?