dSLR thread

[Stereodude]

Seems that Canon is getting all the recommendations. Does Canon have the best glass overall or does it really depend on a particular lens. Canon better for lens X but Nikon better for lens Y? Is Nikon just overpriced but as good as Canon?

Canon has a good selection of mid-grade pro lenses. Nikon traditionally did not. That had gaps in the middle of their lineup. For example Canon has a 70-200mm F4 IS ($1300), as well as a F2.8 IS ($2200). Nikon used to only have a 70-200 F2.8 flavor ($2400). They've only recently come out with a F4 variant ($1400). I went Canon quite a few years ago due to their lens offering and the holes in Nikon's line-up.

BTW, do you still have any of your Minolta gear?

Last, depending on what exactly you want to do the Sony Alpha mirrorless E-mount cameras (formerly called NEX) might be a slick way to do what you're after. Because they're mirrorless they have a shallow lens mount compared to a SLR which means there's space for adapters. You can adapt just about any lens mount to a Sony E-mount. The camera support contrast peaking as well as zoomed areas for focuses manual focus lenses. There are even adapters for Canon EF lenses that keep the AF and the IS. If you want to shoot landscapes and aren't trying to shoot fast moving objects where you need quick AF and can take a little time focusing you can get a lot of camera and versatility for not a lot of money, especially if you have old lenses you want to reuse.

 

[LunarMist]

Lately Canon has really been filling in their lens lineup at the high end. Nikon used to be known for the good mid-range glass. However, their better glass is becoming expensive as well and their DX lineup is just lingering. Due to the lack of fast prime Nikkors during the dark, DX only years, many such Nikkors are now newer and better than the Canon lenses, but overall Canon has a larger and more compelling lineup.

Both Canon and Nikon have the usual staples of 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 or f/4, 16-35/4, most primes, fast/long teles, etc. There is no Canon equivalent to the 14-24 Nikkor if that is important to you. However, Canon has a 17TSE which Nikon does not. The Canon 24 TSE II has independent tilt/shift axes which mean a lot if you need them, whereas the Nikkor is fixed at 90°. Canon also has several wide prime lenses with IS, such as 24/28/35mm.
The new Canon teles are generally a bit better and many are lighter weight. The Canon 200-400/4 w1.4x is simply unmatched as is the new 400/4 DO II, which finally produces IQ matching a prime in the lightweight DO design.

Nikon is living off the Sony sensor IQ, not to say they don't make some fine lenses. Canon sensors are archaic for the most part and many cameras have not been refreshed in a couple of years. Sony alpha seems to be a dead duck and the E mount is not for action. They are nice if you work slowly and like the in-body stabilization which works with the fast primes (not an option with Canon or Nikon). The EVFs are quite different from a DSLR and are well suited to the user base of the Sony. If will leave you cursing during some action sequences or when your battery dies every few hours due to the high drain of the EVF even when not shooting. The EVF is rather sucky in high contrast lighting such as looking partly into the sun or when there are heavy reflections. In dim flat lighting the EVFs are useful.

 

[ddrueding]

Thanks for that Lunar, lots of good stuff.

 

[snowhiker]

Canon has a good selection of mid-grade pro lenses. Nikon traditionally did not. That had gaps in the middle of their lineup. For example Canon has a 70-200mm F4 IS ($1300), as well as a F2.8 IS ($2200). Nikon used to only have a 70-200 F2.8 flavor ($2400). They've only recently come out with a F4 variant ($1400). I went Canon quite a few years ago due to their lens offering and the holes in Nikon's line-up.

BTW, do you still have any of your Minolta gear?

Last, depending on what exactly you want to do the Sony Alpha mirrorless E-mount cameras (formerly called NEX) might be a slick way to do what you're after. Because they're mirrorless they have a shallow lens mount compared to a SLR which means there's space for adapters. You can adapt just about any lens mount to a Sony E-mount. The camera support contrast peaking as well as zoomed areas for focuses manual focus lenses. There are even adapters for Canon EF lenses that keep the AF and the IS. If you want to shoot landscapes and aren't trying to shoot fast moving objects where you need quick AF and can take a little time focusing you can get a lot of camera and versatility for not a lot of money, especially if you have old lenses you want to reuse.

The multi-quote function is giving me fits so I'll just reply individually.

Gotcha. Nikon had holes in their lens lineup, whereas Canon has some decent mid-range lenses. I leaning toward the 6D now.

I no longer have my Minolta XG1 film camera or lenses/accessories/darkroom/etc/etc items. I gave my 50mm and 80-200mm Soligor? zoom to my friend. Don't know if he still has it.

 

[snowhiker]

Thanks for the long and very reformative post Lunar.

Lately Canon has really been filling in their lens lineup at the high end. Nikon used to be known for the good mid-range glass. However, their better glass is becoming expensive as well and their DX lineup is just lingering. Due to the lack of fast prime Nikkors during the dark, DX only years, many such Nikkors are now newer and better than the Canon lenses, but overall Canon has a larger and more compelling lineup.

Are there any good web site that do serious objective/technical reviews of lenses now-a-days? I remember back in the day the various photo mags had pretty comprehensive reviews. Perhaps I just need to go to the book store and pick up some magazines. Which ones?

Both Canon and Nikon have the usual staples of 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 or f/4, 16-35/4, most primes, fast/long teles, etc. There is no Canon equivalent to the 14-24 Nikkor if that is important to you. However, Canon has a 17TSE which Nikon does not. The Canon 24 TSE II has independent tilt/shift axes which mean a lot if you need them, whereas the Nikkor is fixed at 90°. Canon also has several wide prime lenses with IS, such as 24/28/35mm.
The new Canon teles are generally a bit better and many are lighter weight. The Canon 200-400/4 w1.4x is simply unmatched as is the new 400/4 DO II, which finally produces IQ matching a prime in the lightweight DO design.

I don't think I'll ever need any tele lenses. Something like the Canon 17-40mm f/4 has the range and low price I like but is there noticeable drop in quality verses the 16-35mm f/2.8? Twice the price simply because it's a stop faster or is there noticeable IQ improvements. I do need to consider an "IS" lens as I don't plan on carrying around a tripod while hiking outdoors.

Nikon is living off the Sony sensor IQ, not to say they don't make some fine lenses. Canon sensors are archaic for the most part and many cameras have not been refreshed in a couple of years.

Canon 6D vs Nikon D610 sensor-wise?

 

[LunarMist]

The D610 should be better, but there is not a tremendous difference. The Canon 16-35/4 IS is the one to get in that range. The IQ is better t5ahn anty either of the 16-35/2.8 lenses (or 17-40) and I have three.
Look at The Digital Picture, Lenstip, Cameralabs, Photodo and perahops Lensrental for actual lens tests. Most of the rest are very subjective.

 

[snowhiker]

The D610 should be better, but there is not a tremendous difference. The Canon 16-35/4 IS is the one to get in that range. The IQ is better t5ahn anty either of the 16-35/2.8 lenses (or 17-40) and I have three.
Look at The Digital Picture, Lenstip, Cameralabs, Photodo and perahops Lensrental for actual lens tests. Most of the rest are very subjective.

Good info on the Canon ultra-wide zooms. Any idea how the Canon 16-35/4 compares to the Nikon 16-35 f/4? Or 18-35 f/3.5-4.5.

The D610 is a touch better, interesting. As I'm intrigued by this Nikon 20mm f/1.8 lens. Seems to test very well, just came out late last year and is 2-1/3 stop faster than the f/4 zoom. Then again it's not a zoom and I'd lost some versatility.

Seems I'm pushing $2500+ for body + one zoom. I may have to consider going the DX/EF-S route as I don't have DD money to drop on this setup. $2.5k is doable but if IQ goes down "just a tiny bit" and the price gets cuts in half I'll have more options. My friend can't afford FX/EF anyways so I'd like any recommendations that way as well.

Again, much thanks for the replies.

 

[ddrueding]

For the record, I'm not running a FF setup either (original 7D). The quality is good enough to tell the difference between the excellent and less so "L" lenses.

 

[LunarMist]

Good info on the Canon ultra-wide zooms. Any idea how the Canon 16-35/4 compares to the Nikon 16-35 f/4? Or 18-35 f/3.5-4.5.

The D610 is a touch better, interesting. As I'm intrigued by this Nikon 20mm f/1.8 lens. Seems to test very well, just came out late last year and is 2-1/3 stop faster than the f/4 zoom. Then again it's not a zoom and I'd lost some versatility.

Seems I'm pushing $2500+ for body + one zoom. I may have to consider going the DX/EF-S route as I don't have DD money to drop on this setup. $2.5k is doable but if IQ goes down "just a tiny bit" and the price gets cuts in half I'll have more options. My friend can't afford FX/EF anyways so I'd like any recommendations that way as well.

Again, much thanks for the replies.

In APS-C land (DX or EF-S) I'd prefer Nikon or Sony for general purpose use. Canon sensors are not so good ant higher ISOs.

 

[snowhiker]

Camera of the Year

Camera of the Year: Nikon D750. According to Jan'15 Popular Photography. Of course me buying a D750 would be like DD buying THIS.

 

[LunarMist]

The D750 is what the D610 should have been if the D600 disaster had not occurred.
It's very capable for the money and has excellent IQ, but has has obvious performance limitations.

 

[ddrueding]

...would be like DD buying THIS.

I actually expected you to link to this one.

 

[snowhiker]

I actually expected you to link to this one.

If you need an even longer reach @ f/4 look here.

Of course your 1200mm is cheap as compared to this, 17 times the price.

 

[LunarMist]

Is anyone pre-ordering some 5Ds/5DsR bodies? I'm not sure what to do.

 

[Stereodude]

Is anyone pre-ordering some 5Ds/5DsR bodies? I'm not sure what to do.

Hadn't heard of it until I read your post. 50MP? Really?!?!?

 

[LunarMist]

Hadn't heard of it until I read your post. 50MP? Really?!?!?

Wait until Feb 6. Canon must be desperate.

 

[Stereodude]

Wait until Feb 6. Canon must be desperate.

Or geniuses... There are rumors it's a Sony sensor. Who knows...

 

[Handruin]

I have no plans to pre-order either of those. Like SD, I didn't know about them until you posted. I'm able to accomplish everything I need in photography with the 5D MKIII and lenses I own. I don't do the kind of work you must do to need either of these.

 

[Stereodude]

I almost never use any of my DSLRs, so buying another is not too likely. That said, the specs look interesting, but don't appeal to me.

 

[LunarMist]

Or geniuses... There are rumors it's a Sony sensor. Who knows...

It seems to be very noisy, so I don't think so but the rumors persist.
I don't know what to do with the camera. It's apparently only 5FPS even with the crop, which rather stinks.

The new 11-24 is more interesting.

 

[ddrueding]

Looks like they're trying to go after low-end medium-format cameras? Crazy MP, maximum color and sharpness, low ISO, low FPS.

But still waterproof. It actually looks like it would be a good one for my uses, but I suspect it is out of my range. I'm talking to someone right now who is considering giving me a good price on my 7D and 50/1.4 along with some instruction. If they want it I'll probably just get a 7DII and 50/1.2.

 

[LunarMist]

No, it's more to compete with the coming ~50MP Nikon and Sony cameras.
5D series is not waterproof. It's better than some cheaper bodies though not like the 1DX.

 

[LunarMist]

It appears than the 5Ds is a real dud.

 

[Stereodude]

It appears than the 5Ds is a real dud.

So vote with your wallet and don't buy one.

 

[ddrueding]

My big question is who were these people that needed more than 20MP? Anyone here feel they didn't have enough? If you do really need all 50MP, how much trouble do you have with lens quality? Is Canon L glass all good enough to not impact things at these kinds of resolution?

 

[Stereodude]

Is Canon L glass all good enough to not impact things at these kinds of resolution?

Supposedly the newest ones are.

 

[LunarMist]

My big question is who were these people that needed more than 20MP? Anyone here feel they didn't have enough? If you do really need all 50MP, how much trouble do you have with lens quality? Is Canon L glass all good enough to not impact things at these kinds of resolution?

Everything else being equal, a higher sampling frequency (smaller pixel pitch) produces better results with any lens, though returns diminish with lesser quality lenses.
The pixel size is similar to that of an APS-C 20 MP body, so it's not a stretch at all, especially for the latest lens designs. Some lenses may struggle more noticeably in the edges or corners, such as the 24-105/4.
If you think about it, the 24-70/2.8 II, 70-200/2.8 IS II, 16-35/4 IS, 100-400 II, and all the long teles have been updated in recent years. Even the 1999 big teles will produce high resolution, though slightly less with TCs. Lenses like the 200-400/4 1.4x IS will hold up very well, too. I'm really bummed at the lack of HSC, with would make that combo more viable for my interests.

That 11-24 looks truly amazing, even more than the new cameras.

 

[Chewy509]

My big question is who were these people that needed more than 20MP?

I'm still shooting with a 6MP camera... And while there have been some instances I would have liked more MP, for 99% of the stuff I shoot with it, 6MP is good enough, considering we rarely get prints above 5"x7".

 

[LunarMist]

I mostly use panning/stitching to obtain 50-500MP images. Canon's 21/22 MP resolution from ~2008 is archaic and often insufficient for landscapes, especially if cropping is needed.

 

[ddrueding]

I enjoy making GP images as much as the next guy (more, probably), but where in the real world are >15MP images used? Certainly not in print? What size are you printing to?

 

[LunarMist]

300 DPI is the standard for images to be printed, so a clean 15MP would be good for around 10.5x16". Of course images can be uprezzed as well, though that is not quite as good. In recent years consumer standards seem to be all over the place, and often the unwashed masses will accept real crap. What is a GP?

 

[LunarMist]

Looks like they're trying to go after low-end medium-format cameras? Crazy MP, maximum color and sharpness, low ISO, low FPS.

But still waterproof. It actually looks like it would be a good one for my uses, but I suspect it is out of my range. I'm talking to someone right now who is considering giving me a good price on my 7D and 50/1.4 along with some instruction. If they want it I'll probably just get a 7DII and 50/1.2.

Get a 6D. The 7D II is for speed and reach, not best IQ.

 

[ddrueding]

I don't care about reach, but speed/versatility is important. I have managed to get rid of most of my EF-S lenses, but I'm just as likely to shoot a bicycle or auto race as a product shoot. Of course, the majority of my work is baby pictures of a single client (mine), and those are always fast and crazy affairs.

If I didn't get the 7DII I'd be looking at the 5DIII.

 

[Stereodude]

What is a GP?

GigaPixel...

 

[snowhiker]

That 11-24 looks truly amazing, even more than the new cameras.

The Nikon 14-24mm tests really well, is a stop faster at f/2.8 and is $1000 cheaper. I hope the Canon 11-24 tests well, but even then $3000 is a whole lot of cash. But it would be a dream lens for landscape shots.

 

[Tannin]

7D II looks nice. 5D IIIs looks nice too. 11-24 is more of a showcase lens just to prove that they can do it (a bit like the old 50mm f/1.0), but will doubtless be more tan useful to those who need that and can afford it. The only new kit that really has my interest is the new 100-400 Mark II. I'd like one of those for sure - I love the old 100-400 and use it a lot.

As for bodies, the 1D IV is still as perfect a camera as I've ever owned; the 5D II is still a wonderful, wonderful sensor with a truly dreadful focus system - I'd be much happier with a 5D III but they cost quite a lot - and the two older ones (7D Mark 1 and 50D) are sufficient for the tasks they are used for. So no new bodies for me just yet.

 

[LunarMist]

If the 1D IV works for you, then keep using it. There is no direct replacement. I'm set with the 1DX and 7D II.
The 100-400 II should be your next buy as it is really good.

 

[LunarMist]

The Nikon 14-24mm tests really well, is a stop faster at f/2.8 and is $1000 cheaper. I hope the Canon 11-24 tests well, but even then $3000 is a whole lot of cash. But it would be a dream lens for landscape shots.

I'm not sure what you means by tests well; the 14-24 is a fine lens especially by f/5.6. It's a PITA to use on Canon, so the 11-24 is not a direct comparison to the Nikkor. I'm set with 16-35/4 and 17TSE lenses for landscapes, though I try to shift-stitch the 24 TSE II as much as possible and the 17 to a limited degree. I'm sure someone will find uses for crazy wide 11mm, perhaps indoors and in tight quarters as well.

 

[snowhiker]

I'm not sure what you means by tests well; the 14-24 is a fine lens especially by f/5.6.

By "tests well" I mean that all the lens testing web sites, camera review sites, youtube videos, etc all say the Nikon 14-24mm is a really superb lens, and if you need it and can afford it you really should get it. Because it's really good, not crap.

A bunch of Nikon lenses have dropped in price recently due to Nikon "instant savings". At least the prices listed on Nikon's site here.

Nikon's new D810A.

Nikon's description..."Nikon's first ultra high-definition model designed exclusively for astrophotography for capture of vivid reds in photos of nebulae that emit H-alpha light."

An expensive "limited-use" camera. I really wonder if there are enough buyers for this "niche" type of camera.

 

[ddrueding]

If they are able to capture a large enough part of the astrophoto market it can be a profitable thing. Particularly if it starts being bundled with mounts and scopes.