chuck77
Member
I started out 5 years ago with a Canon 40D, which over the years I began to use less and less because of its bulk. The irony, however, is that I had trouble steadying the DSLR during handheld use (almost all the time) until I bought a battery grip for it, which made the camera even bigger. On the other hand, I did manage to capture some great shots with the camera over the years.
Last year, I picked up a Sony NEX-5N at a great price, at the advice of a camera store manager and photo enthusiast. He greatly praised the sensor of the NEX-5N, its small form factor, relatively low cost, and best of all, focus peaking to use with just about every lens out there. I was immediately sold and brought one home with me. I thoroughly enjoyed the camera, including the articulating screen and the touch-to-focus feature. With the exception of a telephoto Canon 70-200mm F4 lens and a Canon 50mm F1.8 lens, I had no other lens to use with the NEX-5N, so I stuck with the 18-55mm Sony kit lens and made the best of it. The image quality with the kit lens was not the greatest, but I still enjoyed the 5N very much. Since the 5N surpassed my Canon DSLR in almost every way (image quality, low light performance, dynamic range, and size), I began to stop using the Canon altogether. Gone were the days when carrying a big DSLR with a huge telephoto lens displaced crowds and other photographers carrying compact cameras.
With the 5N, I was able to capture more of everything without disturbing the subjects of my shot. This was very refreshing and liberating, and at the very reasonable price of the 5N, it made everything more fun.
However, the recent Christmas sales had me interested in a full-frame camera, for the sake of better image quality. I have never ventured very far with using the 5N with manual focus lenses, and I also don`t think that a full-frame mirrorless interchangeable lens camera will be on the market anytime soon, so I happily purchased a Nikon D600 with the 24-85 kit lens. For a full frame camera, it seemed like a great price at $2000, or essentially about $1500 for the camera only. Weeks went by with the camera on my desk, and I noticed that it did not invite me to explore photography, or its outstanding image quality. Instead, it sat on my desk and accumulated just 200 counts on the shutter after one month. When I did take the camera out, I noticed that the relatively small size and weight of the D600 made it hard for me to steady the camera compared to my gripped Canon 40D, and that the lens was not very sharp. (I must confess that I have been flipping through many images taken with Leica M and the Sony RX1 lately). At around the same time, I wanted to know how I would enjoy the rangefinder style experience, so I picked up a used Fuji X100. I have to say that I enjoyed it immensely, even though the image quality of the D600 was quite a big improvement. So, finally, after much deliberation, I returned the D600 camera, knowing that I cannot buy another full frame camera at such a good price. In the last week, I picked up the Nikon D800 because of its better handling and heavier weight at a sale price of $2400+tax (about $2700). I can`t say that I am using it any more than the D600, but the handling is indeed much better, and capable of better image quality. As it stands, I have another few days to decide if I should return the D800. For now, I ran some quick numbers and realized that adding one or two good prime lenses to it would push the cost easiy to $4000. In my mind, a DSLR should be the ideal tool for action shots and telephoto uses, but the D800 fulfills neither, and delivers mainly on image quality and pixel count, which makes it a strange proposition in some ways. For comparison, that amount of money could buy me a used Leica M9 body, or a Sony RX1 with some accessories.
When I looked at both of these cameras in this way, neither camera seemed very expensive, considering the greater amount of use these cameras will get, all while delivering image quality that is equal (if not better) than the M9 and RX1. It also occurred to me that a unique charm of cameras like the M9 and RX1 are their ability to capture images without disturbing the subjects. In this way, I also began to realize that alot of photos taken with DSLRs involved subjects or circumstances that were staged (i.e.: fashion pictures).
I know that I want to pick up a new camera, but I don`t quite know what the best choice is. I also considered the Fuji X-E1 and X-Pro 1, as I have observed that both yielded excellent image quality. Of course, neither are full frame. Which camera would you recommend, and why? I would greatly appreciate your unbiased opinion.
Thanks!
Last year, I picked up a Sony NEX-5N at a great price, at the advice of a camera store manager and photo enthusiast. He greatly praised the sensor of the NEX-5N, its small form factor, relatively low cost, and best of all, focus peaking to use with just about every lens out there. I was immediately sold and brought one home with me. I thoroughly enjoyed the camera, including the articulating screen and the touch-to-focus feature. With the exception of a telephoto Canon 70-200mm F4 lens and a Canon 50mm F1.8 lens, I had no other lens to use with the NEX-5N, so I stuck with the 18-55mm Sony kit lens and made the best of it. The image quality with the kit lens was not the greatest, but I still enjoyed the 5N very much. Since the 5N surpassed my Canon DSLR in almost every way (image quality, low light performance, dynamic range, and size), I began to stop using the Canon altogether. Gone were the days when carrying a big DSLR with a huge telephoto lens displaced crowds and other photographers carrying compact cameras.
With the 5N, I was able to capture more of everything without disturbing the subjects of my shot. This was very refreshing and liberating, and at the very reasonable price of the 5N, it made everything more fun.
However, the recent Christmas sales had me interested in a full-frame camera, for the sake of better image quality. I have never ventured very far with using the 5N with manual focus lenses, and I also don`t think that a full-frame mirrorless interchangeable lens camera will be on the market anytime soon, so I happily purchased a Nikon D600 with the 24-85 kit lens. For a full frame camera, it seemed like a great price at $2000, or essentially about $1500 for the camera only. Weeks went by with the camera on my desk, and I noticed that it did not invite me to explore photography, or its outstanding image quality. Instead, it sat on my desk and accumulated just 200 counts on the shutter after one month. When I did take the camera out, I noticed that the relatively small size and weight of the D600 made it hard for me to steady the camera compared to my gripped Canon 40D, and that the lens was not very sharp. (I must confess that I have been flipping through many images taken with Leica M and the Sony RX1 lately). At around the same time, I wanted to know how I would enjoy the rangefinder style experience, so I picked up a used Fuji X100. I have to say that I enjoyed it immensely, even though the image quality of the D600 was quite a big improvement. So, finally, after much deliberation, I returned the D600 camera, knowing that I cannot buy another full frame camera at such a good price. In the last week, I picked up the Nikon D800 because of its better handling and heavier weight at a sale price of $2400+tax (about $2700). I can`t say that I am using it any more than the D600, but the handling is indeed much better, and capable of better image quality. As it stands, I have another few days to decide if I should return the D800. For now, I ran some quick numbers and realized that adding one or two good prime lenses to it would push the cost easiy to $4000. In my mind, a DSLR should be the ideal tool for action shots and telephoto uses, but the D800 fulfills neither, and delivers mainly on image quality and pixel count, which makes it a strange proposition in some ways. For comparison, that amount of money could buy me a used Leica M9 body, or a Sony RX1 with some accessories.
When I looked at both of these cameras in this way, neither camera seemed very expensive, considering the greater amount of use these cameras will get, all while delivering image quality that is equal (if not better) than the M9 and RX1. It also occurred to me that a unique charm of cameras like the M9 and RX1 are their ability to capture images without disturbing the subjects. In this way, I also began to realize that alot of photos taken with DSLRs involved subjects or circumstances that were staged (i.e.: fashion pictures).
I know that I want to pick up a new camera, but I don`t quite know what the best choice is. I also considered the Fuji X-E1 and X-Pro 1, as I have observed that both yielded excellent image quality. Of course, neither are full frame. Which camera would you recommend, and why? I would greatly appreciate your unbiased opinion.
Thanks!
