Contemplating a big gear shift... Would like your input.

wildlife hmm... guess you need 400mm and more ...in that case option d would be the one, you don't want to shoot those with a Leica nor Fuji (I have both and they are nice for lets say upto 135mm - too short for wildlife)
 
Did you have any issues with dust / oil on the sensor? That appears to be a rather common complaint about the camera.

No more dust than I had on my D50. I bought mine in February of this year. Periodic sensor-cleaning is part of the territory with any DSLR, though I think some rather vocal people on forums believe that plunking down $2K means they are entitled to place unrealistic demands upon their camera.

If you do get a D600 (or D800 or D3X, though I think those would be overkill for your needs), consider the 200 f4 AF-D Micro for macro and the 16-35 f4 AF-S VR for landscape. The first is legendary and the second is often unavailable due to high demand. Nikon also just released a new 80-400 for wildlife so you'd be able to find people unloading their old versions for decent prices.

One of the reasons why I prefer a full frame DSLR over a crop format is their smaller DOF at equivalent focal lengths, which makes subject isolation much easier. It was always difficult for me to get much subject isolation with my D50 on the wide end, though a 35 f1.4 on a full frame looks fantastic. I had to settle for the DOF and bokeh of a 50mm when doing portraits on a D50, which doesn't compare to using a fast 85 or 105 on a full frame.
 
I have to 2nd Keith's suggestion if you are looking for JUST a landscape camera addition to what you already have. The sigma merrills are just amazing for daytime landscape work. I think you would be amazed at the quality you get. Bob.
 
You have a couple of specialized needs that require different solutions.

Bird photography require maximizing pixels on target, plus decent high ISO performance if you need DoF or BiF (Depth of Field or Birds in Flight). A FF D600 with a 400mm is a huge package, and you would probably be better served by a 300mm on an APS-C sized camera, or possibly a m4/3 with a good Olympus telephoto.

Landscape photography is better-served by a FF camera with lots of high-quality pixels out to the frame edge.
 
For me, I'd get a full frame or Sigma DSLR if you're set on getting rid of the 'blad. Otherwise, I think Hasselblads make for superb landscape cameras. I think the whole kaboodle comes into it's own on a tripod, but agree that I prefer Rolleiflex for handheld.

I agree, hasselblad is fantastic and great on a tripod. Sort of on the fence here about getting rid of it.
 
Macro and Wildlife?

Go for an APS-DSLR then. What would you need "fullframe" for?

Nikon D7100
Tamron 70-300 VR (the new one!)
Sigma or Tamron 2.8/90 Macro
Nikkor 16-85 (for the rest)

...and you're done.
 
No more dust than I had on my D50. I bought mine in February of this year. Periodic sensor-cleaning is part of the territory with any DSLR, though I think some rather vocal people on forums believe that plunking down $2K means they are entitled to place unrealistic demands upon their camera.

If you do get a D600 (or D800 or D3X, though I think those would be overkill for your needs), consider the 200 f4 AF-D Micro for macro and the 16-35 f4 AF-S VR for landscape. The first is legendary and the second is often unavailable due to high demand. Nikon also just released a new 80-400 for wildlife so you'd be able to find people unloading their old versions for decent prices.

One of the reasons why I prefer a full frame DSLR over a crop format is their smaller DOF at equivalent focal lengths, which makes subject isolation much easier. It was always difficult for me to get much subject isolation with my D50 on the wide end, though a 35 f1.4 on a full frame looks fantastic. I had to settle for the DOF and bokeh of a 50mm when doing portraits on a D50, which doesn't compare to using a fast 85 or 105 on a full frame.

I think some amount of dust is likely inevitable. Thanks for the feedback!

I'll stick to the om-d for macro. I like the 60mm lens a lot and I'm happy with the smaller sensor.
 
I have to 2nd Keith's suggestion if you are looking for JUST a landscape camera addition to what you already have. The sigma merrills are just amazing for daytime landscape work. I think you would be amazed at the quality you get. Bob.

Thanks Bob. Haven't yet had a chance to look into the sigmas. I hear good things about the foveon sensors though.
 
You have a couple of specialized needs that require different solutions.

Bird photography require maximizing pixels on target, plus decent high ISO performance if you need DoF or BiF (Depth of Field or Birds in Flight). A FF D600 with a 400mm is a huge package, and you would probably be better served by a 300mm on an APS-C sized camera, or possibly a m4/3 with a good Olympus telephoto.

Landscape photography is better-served by a FF camera with lots of high-quality pixels out to the frame edge.

Agreed about the different solutions. I'm going to stick with the omd and 100-300mm lens for wildlife (including birds).

Lugging around massive telephotos on a full frame package doesn't sound like a ton of fun.
 
Macro and Wildlife?

Go for an APS-DSLR then. What would you need "fullframe" for?

Nikon D7100
Tamron 70-300 VR (the new one!)
Sigma or Tamron 2.8/90 Macro
Nikkor 16-85 (for the rest)

...and you're done.

Hi Kent,

Looking at full frame for landscape. I'm sticking to the omd for macro and wildlife. Sorry for any confusion.
 
Another vote for a dSLR. Full frame. You're a serious photographer, doing serious work. Skip the compacts and m4/3 stuff.

[Which Hassy model might you be selling?]

And, with digital, i wouldn't be worried about having 'only' two weeks to aquire+familiarize myself with the camera before departure. With film, maybe, as you'd have to test it, and send the film out and scan it and all that. With digital, as soon as it's delivered, you have your test instantaneously, and it's not as if you need advance functions to do what you do. Setup should take minutes. You already know how to use a camera.
 
I've got a D600, and I did click off around 800 shots in one day, changing lenses (50mm f1.4 AF-D and 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 G, covering an event with an SB-900) and at the end of the day, yes there was dust on the sensor but honestly no more less than a Nikon D300 which I owned for four years and used the heck out of.

I'd say, go for a dSLR as your setup (landscape) or one of the Foveon cameras. I loved my DP2/1 and still the wallpaper on my desktop is from my DP2... There's always room for film or compacts !
 
Another vote for a dSLR. Full frame. You're a serious photographer, doing serious work. Skip the compacts and m4/3 stuff.

[Which Hassy model might you be selling?]

And, with digital, i wouldn't be worried about having 'only' two weeks to aquire+familiarize myself with the camera before departure. With film, maybe, as you'd have to test it, and send the film out and scan it and all that. With digital, as soon as it's delivered, you have your test instantaneously, and it's not as if you need advance functions to do what you do. Setup should take minutes. You already know how to use a camera.

501cm.

Yeah, I can get used to equipment pretty quickly. A couple hours with the manual (if necessary) and I'm good to go re all features. A few minutes to do normal stuff, as you said.

I am not going to go with the d600. The multitude of reports on the internet of dust / lubricant from inside the camera ending up on the sensor has spooked me.

Also, don't think I want to shell out 3k for a d800e plus ~4k for lenses.

Right now, I'm leaning toward a fuji x-e1 with the kit zoom, the 55-200 zoom, and the 14mm lens (determined to get good results with a wide angle).
 
I've got a D600, and I did click off around 800 shots in one day, changing lenses (50mm f1.4 AF-D and 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 G, covering an event with an SB-900) and at the end of the day, yes there was dust on the sensor but honestly no more less than a Nikon D300 which I owned for four years and used the heck out of.

I'd say, go for a dSLR as your setup (landscape) or one of the Foveon cameras. I loved my DP2/1 and still the wallpaper on my desktop is from my DP2... There's always room for film or compacts !

Looking into foveon black and white possibilities. A very large portion of my work is black and white. Thanks for the input.
 
Hello hello.

I basically only do macro and landscape work with some wildlife (e.g. bird) photography thrown in for good measure. Feel free to check out my website, www.renderedinsilver.com , to see my work in case it helps you with your responses.

Right now I'm pretty well set for macro work. I love my om-d and the 60mm olympus macro lens. I sometimes still use my old takumar macro lenses too. 🙂 Micro four thirds gives me good reach for macro along with fairly good depth of field (more than full frame or aspc anyway).

Also, I feel comfortable using the om-d for telephoto / wildlife work. I'm not going to buy a gigantic fast telephoto for a dslr because I am not comfortable spending that kind of money on an area which is a not a primary area in my body of work. Micro four thirds gives me the panasonic 100-300 which is relatively inexpensive and delivers fairly good quality photos.

So, that brings me to landscape. I've been using my om-d with the 12mm lens and also my rx100 for landscape work. On the whole, I've found that I prefer the rx100. I am not a big wide angle person apparently. I find that I prefer that my landscapes are taken with a 35 - 90mm lens / perspective on the whole. And, I like the zoom. There have regularly been times in which it is not possible for me to 'zoom with my feet' because either (1) it would take too long to cover the distance to get to where I would like to be or (2) taking those extra steps would be dangerous, e.g. walking off a cliff. Cropping to get the composition I want is not always a great option. I would prefer to minimize cropping as much as possible. Also, telephoto compression can be quite nice for landscapes. As nice as the rx100 is, I would like to step up in image quality a bit if possible (sensor is damned good though). I would also like to do long exposures, which just is not an option with the rx100.

So, now I have a bunch of gear, accumulated over the past decade, that just isn't really getting much use and which I am generally somewhat reluctant to use. To be blunt -- most of it is film equipment and I'm tired of scanning negatives. Digital convenience is getting to me these days. I don't particularly have the time or the inclination to scan. I do love my film cameras and the results I get from film, but I find that I just go digital nine times out of ten these days.

I think I have a few options at my disposal...

(1) Just be content with the rx100 for landscape. Obviously the cheapest, easiest option. The camera has held up well in the rain and delivers quite good results. The sensor is pretty awesome. I would like to get more dynamic range and generally step up IQ a bit though. Also, no long exposure possibilities with the rx100.

(2) Get zooms for the om-d. The zooms in the moderate wide angle to telephoto range just don't seem as good as the slr options. Quality is okay, but nothing great. Wider zooms just seem somewhat lackluster too. Primes are great though.

(3) Get a fuji x-e1 kit. The kit zoom with it seems quite good and by all accounts the telephoto zoom should be good as well. They may not be up to the top of the line nikon or canon zooms, but they should be solid contenders. The sale that is ongoing now makes the pricing rather attractive.

(4) Get a full frame dslr for maximum quality. I should note that I print no larger than 13x19. A d800e would be the top quality choice, but a d600 gives a full frame sensor for 1k less (but possibly with dust / oil issues? hope Nikon remedied that). The 24-120mm f4 and 70-200mm f4 seem very good. Nikon has a sale going on that moment. So, while this is clearly the most expensive option, it is at least somewhat less expensive than what it might otherwise be. This seems to be the most flexible, highest quality, heaviest, and most expensive option.

(5) Oddball option is get a leica m 240. The wait time involved, having a camera body alone that costs $7k, and unknown long exposure capabilities give me pause though. Would be able to use some zooms of x y z brand on it though via adapters. EVF technology seems fairly old and I don't really like hotshoe evfs. I could keep using my 50 summicron and 28/2.8 elmarit asph on it though...

To pay for the above, I'd have to part with a good chunk of gear. Note for the moderators -- not putting up anything for sale here and I will summarily ignore any messages about purchasing so as not to run afoul of any forum policies. I am always happy to pay my classified fees and sell my gear here at rff and will do so if and when the time comes.

I don't really use my hasselblad kit at all. I generally just prefer my rolleiflex -- it is simple, not as cumbersome, and I can focus it more reliably (just works better with my rubbish eyesight, thank you maxwell screen). Selling the camera plus accessories along with the 50 / 80 / 150mm lenses would cover $2700 or so. I havent bothered to carefully price anything out.

Could also part with my olympus 12mm for ~$600.

I could let go of my leica r8 for another $500, keeping my leicaflex sl2 and 50/90 summicrons.

I won't sell my rolleiflex or my m3 with 50 summicron, ever. If I let go of my black paint .58 mp, I could get another $3500+, but that would be a difficult sale. And, I would have to get a m2 or something to replace it with (unless I got the m 240) because I'd have a 35mm and 28mm lens that I would not really be able to use on my m3 without accessory finders -- and I'm not going to do that.

So, the funds for the above options are available. Just really not sure what way to go.

Leaving for glacier park in montana in a two weeks. Should I stick with existing, trusted equipment or bring along new stuff as well as the om-d / rx100?

Just trying to work through my thought process here and would appreciate your opinions and input.

Thanks in advance.


Have you looked at the Sigma primes for your OM-D, they are apparently excellent, wether they are the focal lengths your need though... Also, quite inexpensive.
 
Back
Top Bottom