This topic is in the 2014 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2014For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
p.4 #1For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
Thanks for the further thoughts everyone!
I'm perfectly happy with any camera that has useful live-view for composition and manual focusing - so not that a M240 is high on my list but I think even it meets that qualification. But I'd never use a range-finder without liveview for my work - too many UWA and telephoto compositions that would be impractical.
Knowing the range of things I shoot my primary focus is still a slow zoom trinity on *something*.
That said, I appreciate the interesting suggestions that don't strictly fit that mold.
And yes, I honestly would consider a WATE on a A7r even though that doesn't necessarily meet my original requirements entirely and is insanely expensive - again, this would be more treated like a one year rental. The sample images I've found of that pairing produces corner resolution that beggar belief (at the apertures I'd shoot at). And to have something like that with a combined weight of just about 2lbs I could take on hikes is amazing. I had no idea something like that existed. Add a 24-70 and 70-200 for vehicle based stuff and the GM1+12-32+45-175 to handle longer focals when hiking and its an interesting hybrid approach. So something for me to think about I hadn't considered at all.
But many of my best shots are far away from UWA and I know I will have plenty of compositions in the mid-telephoto.
As to the larger question of "worth it" like I said earlier I think I know now that I need to go print some things large just to get a feel for what my current limits are. By that I mean both technical limits of my gear and limits of my desire to print or display anything big!
Psychologically I'm feeling like >30MP without an AA is required for a "big enough" change along with glass that resolves to that across the vast majority of the frame at F/11.
Forgot to say earlier - thanks for the reference to 24MP APS-C AA being quite good compared to FF with AA. I'm pretty happy with tackling DR with stacked exposures so sensor size alone isn't what I'm after. Working resolution and micro-contrast of the sensor and lens system would be my primary quality metric.
And someone asked, that first shot is from Coal Mine Canyon in the Navajo/Hopi Nation.
I'm perfectly happy with any camera that has useful live-view for composition and manual focusing - so not that a M240 is high on my list but I think even it meets that qualification. But I'd never use a range-finder without liveview for my work - too many UWA and telephoto compositions that would be impractical.
Knowing the range of things I shoot my primary focus is still a slow zoom trinity on *something*.
That said, I appreciate the interesting suggestions that don't strictly fit that mold.
And yes, I honestly would consider a WATE on a A7r even though that doesn't necessarily meet my original requirements entirely and is insanely expensive - again, this would be more treated like a one year rental. The sample images I've found of that pairing produces corner resolution that beggar belief (at the apertures I'd shoot at). And to have something like that with a combined weight of just about 2lbs I could take on hikes is amazing. I had no idea something like that existed. Add a 24-70 and 70-200 for vehicle based stuff and the GM1+12-32+45-175 to handle longer focals when hiking and its an interesting hybrid approach. So something for me to think about I hadn't considered at all.
But many of my best shots are far away from UWA and I know I will have plenty of compositions in the mid-telephoto.
As to the larger question of "worth it" like I said earlier I think I know now that I need to go print some things large just to get a feel for what my current limits are. By that I mean both technical limits of my gear and limits of my desire to print or display anything big!
Psychologically I'm feeling like >30MP without an AA is required for a "big enough" change along with glass that resolves to that across the vast majority of the frame at F/11.
Forgot to say earlier - thanks for the reference to 24MP APS-C AA being quite good compared to FF with AA. I'm pretty happy with tackling DR with stacked exposures so sensor size alone isn't what I'm after. Working resolution and micro-contrast of the sensor and lens system would be my primary quality metric.
And someone asked, that first shot is from Coal Mine Canyon in the Navajo/Hopi Nation.
Aug 18, 2014 at 06:36 PM
p.4 #2For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
kwalsh wrote:
Psychologically I'm feeling like >30MP without an AA is required for a "big enough" change along with glass that resolves to that across the vast majority of the frame at F/11.
At least on FF 35 and >30MP's, you will be throwing noticeable resolution away at F11. Even beyond F5.6 I see a drop but of course have no issue at F8 since it's not that dramatic (but F11 is). Perhaps that's an argument/ rationale to look into a tilt/ shift lens option if you choose that route?
APS 24MP's challenges most lenses, as I found with the Pentax K3. Of course one of the zoom lenses that is not challenged is the great new Sigma 18 - 35/1.8.
Psychologically I'm feeling like >30MP without an AA is required for a "big enough" change along with glass that resolves to that across the vast majority of the frame at F/11.
At least on FF 35 and >30MP's, you will be throwing noticeable resolution away at F11. Even beyond F5.6 I see a drop but of course have no issue at F8 since it's not that dramatic (but F11 is). Perhaps that's an argument/ rationale to look into a tilt/ shift lens option if you choose that route?
APS 24MP's challenges most lenses, as I found with the Pentax K3. Of course one of the zoom lenses that is not challenged is the great new Sigma 18 - 35/1.8.
Aug 18, 2014 at 06:43 PM
p.4 #3For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
kwalsh wrote:
Thanks for the further thoughts everyone!
I'm perfectly happy with any camera that has useful live-view for composition and manual focusing - so not that a M240 is high on my list but I think even it meets that qualification. But I'd never use a range-finder without liveview for my work - too many UWA and telephoto compositions that would be impractical.
the m240 only allows live-view magnification in the center of the image, you can't zoom in anywhere else in the frame (apparently a hardware issue). this severely hampers it as a landscape camera from my perspective. obviously people took landscape pictures long before live-view was invented, so it's up to the individual user how big an issue that is.
Thanks for the further thoughts everyone!
I'm perfectly happy with any camera that has useful live-view for composition and manual focusing - so not that a M240 is high on my list but I think even it meets that qualification. But I'd never use a range-finder without liveview for my work - too many UWA and telephoto compositions that would be impractical.
the m240 only allows live-view magnification in the center of the image, you can't zoom in anywhere else in the frame (apparently a hardware issue). this severely hampers it as a landscape camera from my perspective. obviously people took landscape pictures long before live-view was invented, so it's up to the individual user how big an issue that is.
Aug 18, 2014 at 11:35 PM
p.4 #4For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
I wouldn't be surprised if the Fuji-Panasonic sensor came into fruition by the time you leave which if it comes to the M43 mount, would be great with your current workflow.
based on your requirements I don't think any of the current systems suit you unless you want to carry a DSLR which I personally went mirrorless simply because I enjoyed carrying a DSLR around as much as a visit to the dentist.
That or Leica.
what you can do with M43 has definitely blown away what I thought I could achieve with it and I have the 12-35mm f2.8 with a GX7.
based on your requirements I don't think any of the current systems suit you unless you want to carry a DSLR which I personally went mirrorless simply because I enjoyed carrying a DSLR around as much as a visit to the dentist.
That or Leica.
what you can do with M43 has definitely blown away what I thought I could achieve with it and I have the 12-35mm f2.8 with a GX7.
Aug 19, 2014 at 04:17 AM
p.4 #5For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
@Tariq - Ugh, you're right. I just doubled my typical m43 working aperture to account for crop factor, but to keep up with double the pixel density I'll need another stop for diffraction. And that isn't accounting for a lack of AA either. So F/8 or F/6.3. Sigh, I already get into focus stacking situations on m43. So TS or even more focus stacking with 36MP and no AA. And focus stacking is a PITA in deep twilight.
@sebboh - Well that's good news, no need to consider spending $7K then
Having tried critical focus in low light with an OVF for a few years I now consider a functional zoomed live view for focusing in almost any part of the frame to be a primary requirement.
@val - After a long search m43 has proved to be just about the perfect sweet spot for size vs. IQ for my shooting. I grumble about a few features on various bodies and likely will never get the high IQ slow telezoom that I want but like you I am just amazed at what the system can do if you put your mind to it.
OK - so I think for my next short camp/photo trip I'm going to have to send some $$$ off to Lens Rentals for a body and a lens or two. More to evaluate what 36MP can do and what I have to do in the field to realize the advantage rather than evaluating any particular camera or lens. I think I need to get some ground truth.
@sebboh - Well that's good news, no need to consider spending $7K then
Having tried critical focus in low light with an OVF for a few years I now consider a functional zoomed live view for focusing in almost any part of the frame to be a primary requirement.@val - After a long search m43 has proved to be just about the perfect sweet spot for size vs. IQ for my shooting. I grumble about a few features on various bodies and likely will never get the high IQ slow telezoom that I want but like you I am just amazed at what the system can do if you put your mind to it.
OK - so I think for my next short camp/photo trip I'm going to have to send some $$$ off to Lens Rentals for a body and a lens or two. More to evaluate what 36MP can do and what I have to do in the field to realize the advantage rather than evaluating any particular camera or lens. I think I need to get some ground truth.
Aug 19, 2014 at 05:23 AM
p.4 #6For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
sebboh wrote:
you put forward the WATE option. Seriously?
You want the OP to invest 4k in a lens which is easily bested in it's mount by any number of much cheaper wides---they of course are not great in the sony except the new S.links please? i've not seen it beat by anything other than the ZE 21/2.8, 18 SEM, and 21 SEM and the last two only beat it on the m-cameras which probably don't beat it on the a7r given pixel difference. also, the OP wants zooms, which the WATE is on the A7r (try using it at one of those in between focal lengths on the m9 
). finally, the WATE will hold it's value (especially if bought used) over the course of a year much better than an slr zoom.
I'd like to see a link to this too. I owned a 5D3 before I switched to the A7r and find it extremely hard to believe. I don't recall reading anything of the sort on the 'canon lenses on A7r' thread that Fred started and shared his experiences on.
uhoh7 wrote
I surprised to see you write this after Fred's long thread where the 5D smokes the A7r with wide canon zooms.you put forward the WATE option. Seriously?
You want the OP to invest 4k in a lens which is easily bested in it's mount by any number of much cheaper wides---they of course are not great in the sony except the new S.
). finally, the WATE will hold it's value (especially if bought used) over the course of a year much better than an slr zoom.I'd like to see a link to this too. I owned a 5D3 before I switched to the A7r and find it extremely hard to believe. I don't recall reading anything of the sort on the 'canon lenses on A7r' thread that Fred started and shared his experiences on.
Aug 19, 2014 at 06:02 AM
p.4 #7For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
I think you should buy the new DP2 Quattro, and the DP1 Quattro when it's released in the near future.
I know you said you don't like prime lenses, but the DP Quattros are really the least expensive and lightest weight way of moving up to medium format quality. I suspect that any of the zoom lenses available for high-resolution "full-frame" cameras like the D810 and A7R are not going to come anywhere close to the resolution of the Quattros. (Although maybe someone will demonstrate I am wrong about that?)
You can still use your existing camera for shots where those two Quattro focal lengths don't work for you.
I know you said you don't like prime lenses, but the DP Quattros are really the least expensive and lightest weight way of moving up to medium format quality. I suspect that any of the zoom lenses available for high-resolution "full-frame" cameras like the D810 and A7R are not going to come anywhere close to the resolution of the Quattros. (Although maybe someone will demonstrate I am wrong about that?)
You can still use your existing camera for shots where those two Quattro focal lengths don't work for you.
Aug 19, 2014 at 07:41 AM
p.4 #8For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
Uncle Mike wrote:
I think you should buy the new DP2 Quattro, and the DP1 Quattro when it's released in the near future.
Thanks for the suggestion. I am considering a some sort of DPnX as a hybrid approach to things exactly as you describe - m43 for "everything" and a Foveon as a special niche.
From a number of comparison samples already available I prefer the Merrils to the Quattros for landscape photography. It also appears monochrome works just a bit better with the Merrils. A little early to tell for sure as the Quattro is just out and Sigmas always come out of the oven a bit too early. Give it six months or so of FW and SPP updates to see what the real potential of Quattro is.
I'm also curious to see what the DP1Q does lens wise. The DP1M was let down by its optics compared to the 2 and 3. If the DP1Q fixes this then I might go Q just to get the hopefully sharper wide angle FoV. But at the moment I've got the DP2M as the most interesting blip on my Foveon radar.
I think you should buy the new DP2 Quattro, and the DP1 Quattro when it's released in the near future.
Thanks for the suggestion. I am considering a some sort of DPnX as a hybrid approach to things exactly as you describe - m43 for "everything" and a Foveon as a special niche.
From a number of comparison samples already available I prefer the Merrils to the Quattros for landscape photography. It also appears monochrome works just a bit better with the Merrils. A little early to tell for sure as the Quattro is just out and Sigmas always come out of the oven a bit too early. Give it six months or so of FW and SPP updates to see what the real potential of Quattro is.
I'm also curious to see what the DP1Q does lens wise. The DP1M was let down by its optics compared to the 2 and 3. If the DP1Q fixes this then I might go Q just to get the hopefully sharper wide angle FoV. But at the moment I've got the DP2M as the most interesting blip on my Foveon radar.
Aug 19, 2014 at 08:09 AM
p.4 #9For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
kwalsh wrote:
From a number of comparison samples already available I prefer the Merrils to the Quattros for landscape photography.
That appears to be a case of the Sigma raw converter (SPP) needing to be better optimized for the Quattro, and there is an upcoming (or already happened) update to SPP and to the firmware for the Quattro to fix those problems.
From a number of comparison samples already available I prefer the Merrils to the Quattros for landscape photography.
That appears to be a case of the Sigma raw converter (SPP) needing to be better optimized for the Quattro, and there is an upcoming (or already happened) update to SPP and to the firmware for the Quattro to fix those problems.
Aug 19, 2014 at 09:40 AM
p.4 #10For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
kwalsh wrote:
Knowing the range of things I shoot my primary focus is still a slow zoom trinity on *something*.
Working resolution and micro-contrast of the sensor and lens system would be my primary quality metric.
In the first sentence you've answered your own question. D800/10 or possibly 5Dmk3. Candidates for your zooms are very limited, and you can get fantastic feedback in the respective forums on the glass.
Second sentence is why I suggested an M9 and appropriate lenses, as from 18 to 35, nothing is sharper or cleaner ,in color, outside MF. B&W the MM is sharper, obviously.
You do understand there is instant review on the M9? So it's easy to check your shots.
Perhaps that's why sebboh hates the RF so much,
, he used it with film, so did not see the frame till it came back.
But as he notes, many a great landscape shot has been made without live-view Sebboh, you may know, is a superb shooter, with great comp: check out his flickr if you have the chance.
Here is a WATE + A7r review:
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=4164
On the Ms, most feel that the zm18, SEM18, SEM 21, zm21/2.8, and 21 elmar, all out perform the WATE. But only the new sony A7S can shoot those lenses decently.
hopefully Zeiss will make a good UWA zoom shortly for the A7. The 2470 f/4 is not great for what you want to do IMHO.
Anyway good luck and have fun with whatever you get
Knowing the range of things I shoot my primary focus is still a slow zoom trinity on *something*.
Working resolution and micro-contrast of the sensor and lens system would be my primary quality metric.
In the first sentence you've answered your own question. D800/10 or possibly 5Dmk3. Candidates for your zooms are very limited, and you can get fantastic feedback in the respective forums on the glass.
Second sentence is why I suggested an M9 and appropriate lenses, as from 18 to 35, nothing is sharper or cleaner ,in color, outside MF. B&W the MM is sharper, obviously.
You do understand there is instant review on the M9? So it's easy to check your shots.
Perhaps that's why sebboh hates the RF so much,
, he used it with film, so did not see the frame till it came back. But as he notes, many a great landscape shot has been made without live-view
Sebboh, you may know, is a superb shooter, with great comp: check out his flickr if you have the chance.Here is a WATE + A7r review:
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=4164
On the Ms, most feel that the zm18, SEM18, SEM 21, zm21/2.8, and 21 elmar, all out perform the WATE. But only the new sony A7S can shoot those lenses decently.
hopefully Zeiss will make a good UWA zoom shortly for the A7. The 2470 f/4 is not great for what you want to do IMHO.
Anyway good luck and have fun with whatever you get
Aug 19, 2014 at 09:49 AM
p.4 #11For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
uhoh7 wrote:
Working resolution and micro-contrast of the sensor and lens system would be my primary quality metric.In the first sentence you've answered your own question. D800/10 or possibly 5Dmk3. Candidates for your zooms are very limited, and you can get fantastic feedback in the respective forums on the glass.
Second sentence is why I suggested an M9 and appropriate lenses, as from 18 to 35, nothing is sharper or cleaner ,in color, outside MF. B&W the MM is sharper, obviously.
You do understand there is instant review on the M9? So it's easy to check your shots.
Perhaps that's why sebboh hates the RF so much,, he used it with film, so did not see the frame...Show more →
Ok, I'm confused. The OP says he prefers zooms for his shooting. You post a review of the WATE that suggests that it has excellent performance at f/8 at all focal lengths on the A7r, and then you don't seem to think that would be a good combination for him. Hmm. Some of the m mount primes may be better than the WATE on M cameras, but it is highly unlikely they would be on the A7r. It seems to me the review you posted suggest that the WATE plus the A7r would be a great, although pricey option for the OP. I can't see why you don't think this is a good option.
Sure he might have to add another couple of zooms for a good trio, but there are definitely options out there for the A7r. If he doesn't mind the gap between 21 and 35, then the Zeiss C/Y 35-70 f/3.4 plus Sony G 70-200 f/4 would make an awfully nice kit.
Edited on Aug 19, 2014 at 10:59 AM · View previous versions
kwalsh wrote
Knowing the range of things I shoot my primary focus is still a slow zoom trinity on *something*.Working resolution and micro-contrast of the sensor and lens system would be my primary quality metric.
Second sentence is why I suggested an M9 and appropriate lenses, as from 18 to 35, nothing is sharper or cleaner ,in color, outside MF. B&W the MM is sharper, obviously.
You do understand there is instant review on the M9? So it's easy to check your shots.
Perhaps that's why sebboh hates the RF so much,
, he used it with film, so did not see the frame...Show more →Ok, I'm confused. The OP says he prefers zooms for his shooting. You post a review of the WATE that suggests that it has excellent performance at f/8 at all focal lengths on the A7r, and then you don't seem to think that would be a good combination for him. Hmm. Some of the m mount primes may be better than the WATE on M cameras, but it is highly unlikely they would be on the A7r. It seems to me the review you posted suggest that the WATE plus the A7r would be a great, although pricey option for the OP. I can't see why you don't think this is a good option.
Sure he might have to add another couple of zooms for a good trio, but there are definitely options out there for the A7r. If he doesn't mind the gap between 21 and 35, then the Zeiss C/Y 35-70 f/3.4 plus Sony G 70-200 f/4 would make an awfully nice kit.
Edited on Aug 19, 2014 at 10:59 AM · View previous versions
Aug 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM
p.4 #12For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
uhoh7 wrote:
You do understand there is instant review on the M9? So it's easy to check your shots.
Perhaps that's why sebboh hates the RF so much,, he used it with film, so did not see the frame till it came back.
i hate chimping even more than i hate rangefinders
, and never do it unless somebody else demands to see the image. also, i recall the image review function of the m9 to be of poor quality to the point where it wasn't up to the task of checking focus?
You do understand there is instant review on the M9? So it's easy to check your shots.
Perhaps that's why sebboh hates the RF so much,
, he used it with film, so did not see the frame till it came back. i hate chimping even more than i hate rangefinders
, and never do it unless somebody else demands to see the image. also, i recall the image review function of the m9 to be of poor quality to the point where it wasn't up to the task of checking focus?Aug 19, 2014 at 10:39 AM
p.4 #13For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
sebboh wrote:
Perhaps that's why sebboh hates the RF so much,, he used it with film, so did not see the frame till it came back. i hate chimping even more than i hate rangefinders , and never do it unless somebody else demands to see the image. also, i recall the image review function of the m9 to be of poor quality to the point where it wasn't up to the task of checking focus?
I believe the M9 has a 230k dots display, so yeah, very low resolution.
uhoh7 wrote
You do understand there is instant review on the M9? So it's easy to check your shots.Perhaps that's why sebboh hates the RF so much,
, he used it with film, so did not see the frame till it came back. , and never do it unless somebody else demands to see the image. also, i recall the image review function of the m9 to be of poor quality to the point where it wasn't up to the task of checking focus?I believe the M9 has a 230k dots display, so yeah, very low resolution.
Aug 19, 2014 at 10:43 AM
p.4 #14For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
Absolutely … and that was the primary reason why I "stepped down" from a FF Canon to m43 … because FF gear sucks the fun out of travel photography. I am a much happier person when I travel with m43 gear. The weight savings and trade-off is well worth it, to me.
Two23 wrote:
Over the years (decades,) I've come to the conclusion that really the best use of money to improve your photography usually isn't gear, it's the opportunity to make images (i.e. travel.)
Kent in SD
Two23 wrote:
Over the years (decades,) I've come to the conclusion that really the best use of money to improve your photography usually isn't gear, it's the opportunity to make images (i.e. travel.)
Kent in SD
Aug 19, 2014 at 11:08 AM
p.4 #15For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
I'm pretty sure someone here said it before, but I add my agreement that it's pretty hard getting wide and standard zooms that will do justice to 24mp APSC sensors like the Nikon D7100 (except perhaps for the new Sigma Art 18-35mm F1.8) I know, I'm still searching! The non VR Tamron 17-50/2.8 is probably the next best I've found, beating all Nikon's wide'standard DX zooms I've tried.
Edited on Aug 19, 2014 at 12:06 PM · View previous versions
Edited on Aug 19, 2014 at 12:06 PM · View previous versions
Aug 19, 2014 at 11:29 AM
p.4 #16For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
timballic wrote:
I'm pretty sure someone here said it before, but I add my agreement that it's pretty hard getting wide and standard zooms that will do justice to 24mp APSC sensors like the Nikon A7100 (except perhaps for the new Sigma Art 18-35mm F1.8) I know, I'm still searching! The non VR Tamron 17-50/2.8 is probably the next best I've found, beating all Nikon's wide'standard DX zooms I've tried.
Ye Olde 18-70 AF-S does VERY well on the D7100. Most of Nikon's normal DX zooms are crap, including the 17-55/2.8
The 16-85 is good and VR, but it's not as sharp as the 18-70 (it's got nicer colour though).
I'm pretty sure someone here said it before, but I add my agreement that it's pretty hard getting wide and standard zooms that will do justice to 24mp APSC sensors like the Nikon A7100 (except perhaps for the new Sigma Art 18-35mm F1.8) I know, I'm still searching! The non VR Tamron 17-50/2.8 is probably the next best I've found, beating all Nikon's wide'standard DX zooms I've tried.
Ye Olde 18-70 AF-S does VERY well on the D7100. Most of Nikon's normal DX zooms are crap, including the 17-55/2.8
The 16-85 is good and VR, but it's not as sharp as the 18-70 (it's got nicer colour though).
Aug 19, 2014 at 11:47 AM
p.4 #17For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
mawz wrote
Ye Olde 18-70 AF-S does VERY well on the D7100. Most of Nikon's normal DX zooms are crap, including the 17-55/2.8
The 16-85 is good and VR, but it's not as sharp as the 18-70 (it's got nicer colour though).
I've just been testing a new Nikon 16-85 today, alongside the Tamron, on my D5300 (same 24mp sensor as the D7100),and the Tamron has a clarity and contrast that the Nikon lens lacks, and the extra length of the Nikon, isn't all that sharp anyway..
I've read a couple of reports that say the 18-70's edges aren't as good, though it's better at the long end? Maybe copy variation? They can be picked up fairly cheaply though, so if you are really sure it's sharper (at the edges too), then I may just try one too.
Ye Olde 18-70 AF-S does VERY well on the D7100. Most of Nikon's normal DX zooms are crap, including the 17-55/2.8
The 16-85 is good and VR, but it's not as sharp as the 18-70 (it's got nicer colour though).
I've just been testing a new Nikon 16-85 today, alongside the Tamron, on my D5300 (same 24mp sensor as the D7100),and the Tamron has a clarity and contrast that the Nikon lens lacks, and the extra length of the Nikon, isn't all that sharp anyway..
I've read a couple of reports that say the 18-70's edges aren't as good, though it's better at the long end? Maybe copy variation? They can be picked up fairly cheaply though, so if you are really sure it's sharper (at the edges too), then I may just try one too.
Aug 19, 2014 at 12:04 PM
p.4 #18For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
sebboh wrote:
Perhaps that's why sebboh hates the RF so much,, he used it with film, so did not see the frame till it came back. i hate chimping even more than i hate rangefinders , and never do it unless somebody else demands to see the image. also, i recall the image review function of the m9 to be of poor quality to the point where it wasn't up to the task of checking focus?
I believed this myth for a while myself, but it's nonsense. I shoot uncompressed raw, and whether I got the focus or not is very obvious if you magnify on the screen.
In general with the M9, I spend much less time shooting, shoot many fewer shots, and I prefer the results, in general.
But if I really have a critical framing or focus, I can review :-)
@Steve
I guess bottom line is, why would you spend a fortune on a WATE, when a Zeiss Uwa zoom AND primes are coming shortly, and will likely be better?
As to the review I quoted, I thought it showed many of the limitations of the WATE. Sure, at F8 it's nice :-) that might be enough.
Considering the OP's posts, I think the best camera for him is the D810.
uhoh7 wrote
You do understand there is instant review on the M9? So it's easy to check your shots.Perhaps that's why sebboh hates the RF so much,
, he used it with film, so did not see the frame till it came back. , and never do it unless somebody else demands to see the image. also, i recall the image review function of the m9 to be of poor quality to the point where it wasn't up to the task of checking focus? I believed this myth for a while myself, but it's nonsense. I shoot uncompressed raw, and whether I got the focus or not is very obvious if you magnify on the screen.In general with the M9, I spend much less time shooting, shoot many fewer shots, and I prefer the results, in general.
But if I really have a critical framing or focus, I can review :-)
@Steve
I guess bottom line is, why would you spend a fortune on a WATE, when a Zeiss Uwa zoom AND primes are coming shortly, and will likely be better?
As to the review I quoted, I thought it showed many of the limitations of the WATE. Sure, at F8 it's nice :-) that might be enough.
Considering the OP's posts, I think the best camera for him is the D810.
Aug 21, 2014 at 09:47 AM
p.4 #19For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
timballic wrote:
The 16-85 is good and VR, but it's not as sharp as the 18-70 (it's got nicer colour though).I've just been testing a new Nikon 16-85 today, alongside the Tamron, on my D5300 (same 24mp sensor as the D7100),and the Tamron has a clarity and contrast that the Nikon lens lacks, and the extra length of the Nikon, isn't all that sharp anyway..
I've read a couple of reports that say the 18-70's edges aren't as good, though it's better at the long end? Maybe copy variation? They can be picked up fairly cheaply though, so if you are really sure it's sharper (at the edges too), then I may just try one too.
Sample variation on the 18-70, more likely. I found it sharper stopped down, wide open the edges aren't ideal.
And yes, the 16-85 isn't as crisp as it could be (one reason why Nikon shooters have been asking Nikon to release the 16-85/4 that was patented a couple years ago).
mawz wrote
Ye Olde 18-70 AF-S does VERY well on the D7100. Most of Nikon's normal DX zooms are crap, including the 17-55/2.8The 16-85 is good and VR, but it's not as sharp as the 18-70 (it's got nicer colour though).
I've read a couple of reports that say the 18-70's edges aren't as good, though it's better at the long end? Maybe copy variation? They can be picked up fairly cheaply though, so if you are really sure it's sharper (at the edges too), then I may just try one too.
Sample variation on the 18-70, more likely. I found it sharper stopped down, wide open the edges aren't ideal.
And yes, the 16-85 isn't as crisp as it could be (one reason why Nikon shooters have been asking Nikon to release the 16-85/4 that was patented a couple years ago).
Aug 21, 2014 at 11:28 AM
p.4 #20For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?
mawz wrote:
The 16-85 is good and VR, but it's not as sharp as the 18-70 (it's got nicer colour though).I've just been testing a new Nikon 16-85 today, alongside the Tamron, on my D5300 (same 24mp sensor as the D7100),and the Tamron has a clarity and contrast that the Nikon lens lacks, and the extra length of the Nikon, isn't all that sharp anyway..
I've read a couple of reports that say the 18-70's edges aren't as good, though it's better at the long end? Maybe copy variation? They can be picked up fairly cheaply though, so if you are really sure it's sharper (at the edges too), then I may just try one too.Sample variation on the 18-70, more likely. I found it sharper stopped down, wide open the edges aren't ideal.
And yes, the 16-85 isn't as crisp as it could be (one reason why Nikon shooters have been asking Nikon to release the 16-85/4 that was patented a couple years ago).
One on the way to me now.
timballic wrote
mawz wrote
Ye Olde 18-70 AF-S does VERY well on the D7100. Most of Nikon's normal DX zooms are crap, including the 17-55/2.8The 16-85 is good and VR, but it's not as sharp as the 18-70 (it's got nicer colour though).
I've read a couple of reports that say the 18-70's edges aren't as good, though it's better at the long end? Maybe copy variation? They can be picked up fairly cheaply though, so if you are really sure it's sharper (at the edges too), then I may just try one too.
And yes, the 16-85 isn't as crisp as it could be (one reason why Nikon shooters have been asking Nikon to release the 16-85/4 that was patented a couple years ago).
One on the way to me now.
Aug 21, 2014 at 12:46 PM