icebear
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I take it, your friend didn't care too much about any DXO ratings of the lens.
Dear Klaus,
Indeed, but it's MUCH easier to look at a set of (disputable) figures than to be bold enough to say, "I don't give a flying **** about DXO* but I know what I like".
*Was it Catullus who said, "Utter indifference to your welfare, O Caesar, is matched only by determined ignorance of who you are"? The quote may be somewhat distorted -- it's from memory as well as in translation -- but it does rather reflect how I feel about DXO.
Cheers,
R.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Given that the absolute cost differential between APS-C, FF 24MP, and FF 36-42MP is not that much, why not just buy a used FF 36-42MP instead of incrementally upgrading over time based on some unstated price/performance metric. It makes more sense to maximize image quality over time than to maximize price/performance ratios over the same period.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I was commenting on the language and logic; I didn't mention my opinion of the concept. I just didn't like the division of people into those who get it and those who don't, as if no other view was possible...
Regard, David
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Given that the absolute cost differential between APS-C, FF 24MP, and FF 36-42MP is not that much, why not just buy a used FF 36-42MP instead of incrementally upgrading over time based on some unstated price/performance metric? What is more important: optimizing technical image quality or optimizing a spreadsheet?
Since you've quoted me twice regarding the same thing, I guess I'll answer so you don't do it a third time. I prefer the size of APSC bodies and lenses. I like what Fujifilm offers ergonomically and in regard to shutter speed dials and aperture rings. I believe the results are good enough from these cameras for my type of photography. I've used 36mp Nikon / Sony (D800E and A7R) and 42mp Sony (RX1R II) cameras (as well as a few other FF cameras from Leica and Canon) and I do not care for them as much as the Fuji's I currently use. For me, the sensor is only one piece of the puzzle. I'm not incrementally upgrading over time...so I'm not sure where you got that info.
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
Quite like you thinking jsrockit.
"Like" and "Being comfortable" is a great plus while choosing equipment. Technical specs, for me, are secondary to ergonomics and fun factor.
Unfortunately those are subjective factors and different from person to person. That is the beauty of it, there are different answer for different people,and, for me, no right/wrong answer.
Regards
Marcelo
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I only quoted you because you filled in detail that the OP had previously advocated APS-C and was now advocating FF 24MP in the typical upgrade-itis scenario. My comments were directed at his behavior not yours.
Dogman
Veteran
When digital was fairly new, 10-12 years ago, the full frame camera was what most of us wanted. After all, we were used to 35mm and 24x36 was the norm. Full frame also made more sense at the time because there were few really good lenses made for APS-C format cameras. APS-C users mostly used 35mm format lenses and waited until they could afford a full frame body. Expectations for APS-C were low. It was just a stop-gap format.
Today things are different in many ways. Lots of us discovered APS-C is pretty good on its own and we don't envy or lust for FF equipment any longer. There are a lot of really outstanding optics made by various companies that are designed for the APS-C format these days. Camera manufacturers are now giving their lowly APS-C models the same features as their FF models. We have mirrorless designs in APS-C format that compare favorably with Micro 4/3 bodies in size. Of course the technology that improved APS-C also improved FF but the difference between the two is not as great as it was 10-12 years ago. It's like discovering a Honda Civic is now able to outperform the old Detroit muscle cars and European sports models of the 1960's and 1970's.
I'm perfectly happy with Fuji APS-C equipment today. I enjoy using the XPro and X100 models more than I've enjoyed using any cameras since the Leica. The Fujis may not be the fastest, nimblest, most high performance cameras available but neither was the Leica M6 at the time I was using them. But using these cameras made/make me happy and the pictures I made/make with them are satisfying to me. Fact is, I've made really good pictures with a lot of different cameras over the years. Not a single one of those pictures can be credited to the camera I was using at the time. No, it was me using the camera, whichever one it was. I've made quite a few really bad pictures as well but, once again, I can't attribute those to the cameras either. The mistakes and poor judgement was mine as well.
Today things are different in many ways. Lots of us discovered APS-C is pretty good on its own and we don't envy or lust for FF equipment any longer. There are a lot of really outstanding optics made by various companies that are designed for the APS-C format these days. Camera manufacturers are now giving their lowly APS-C models the same features as their FF models. We have mirrorless designs in APS-C format that compare favorably with Micro 4/3 bodies in size. Of course the technology that improved APS-C also improved FF but the difference between the two is not as great as it was 10-12 years ago. It's like discovering a Honda Civic is now able to outperform the old Detroit muscle cars and European sports models of the 1960's and 1970's.
I'm perfectly happy with Fuji APS-C equipment today. I enjoy using the XPro and X100 models more than I've enjoyed using any cameras since the Leica. The Fujis may not be the fastest, nimblest, most high performance cameras available but neither was the Leica M6 at the time I was using them. But using these cameras made/make me happy and the pictures I made/make with them are satisfying to me. Fact is, I've made really good pictures with a lot of different cameras over the years. Not a single one of those pictures can be credited to the camera I was using at the time. No, it was me using the camera, whichever one it was. I've made quite a few really bad pictures as well but, once again, I can't attribute those to the cameras either. The mistakes and poor judgement was mine as well.
Ok, understood, sorry...
Exactly my thoughts and with the same gear...
sjones
Established
I had assumed (and still believe to some extent) that much of the OP’s delivery accompanied a tongue firmly plastered against cheek. This said, for anyone who actually argues that, all else being equal, the person with the most technically sophisticated camera will take the best photograph, I emphatically suggest that you qualify such contention as one acutely codependent on personal preference.
I’ve seen photos from toy and pinhole cameras that impress me as much as photos from any other type of camera, and since this is a matter of opinion, it’s not debatable.
Also, and just my personal concern, if a camera doesn’t have a film advance, screw it…love the tactile joys of a film advance…love it!
Really, though, it's like airfrogusmc said a few posts back: “It's not about buying the technically best gear you can afford but it is and should be about having equipment that best matches the way that you see and work.”
Anyway, it appears that one man’s troll is another man’s clever provocateur.
I’ve seen photos from toy and pinhole cameras that impress me as much as photos from any other type of camera, and since this is a matter of opinion, it’s not debatable.
Also, and just my personal concern, if a camera doesn’t have a film advance, screw it…love the tactile joys of a film advance…love it!
Really, though, it's like airfrogusmc said a few posts back: “It's not about buying the technically best gear you can afford but it is and should be about having equipment that best matches the way that you see and work.”
Anyway, it appears that one man’s troll is another man’s clever provocateur.
PKR
Veteran
Hi David;
Let me rephrase that.. Some people get it, most people don't.
Best, pkr
Let me rephrase that.. Some people get it, most people don't.
Best, pkr
David Hughes
David Hughes
NickTrop
Veteran
Not saying that at all -- rather a straw man argument you floated here, seems to me, sir (presumably). My gear suggestions are decidedly not to get THE most sophistated gear available. I recommended a six year old digital camera body and (mostly) 20 year old lenses none of which cost over $450 new ($212 average price per lens on six lenses...)
What I am suggesting innanutshell is that if this choice be based strictly on price/performance, logic, reason sans any emotional (or emotional appeal) considerations...
... despite a veritable sea of available gear at all price points from which to choose, the choices both for bodies and lenses at the top of the funnel, truly narrows down to really just one obvious camera body, currently.
That -- in turn, narrows your lens choices exponentially to lens recommendations that will mount to that particular body, and I explained my reasoning behind that.
And that current body is a used Nikon D600 because it has a sensor that has been measured to be by independent lab testing on par with the best available full frame sensors currently, and its resolution specs are up-to-date (and will be for some time). This is because early production issues and resultant internet chatter have artificially impacted prices dramatically downward on the used market. It's a pariah to buyers because of this unfounded concern. Nowhere in the used camera market can you pick up this high-a-quality camera in +Excellent condition with relatively low actuations for $6-700 going rate from reputable used camera retailers.
I am not recommending -- and and no point did I recommend "the most technically sophisticated camera".
Next lenses -- used, minty D-series primes (mostly)
Tier I -- 50/24
1. Start with the 50/1/4 AF-D as your prime-prime (I won't rehash the reasons for that). Stick with just a 50 for ???? (I did for a decade with my first film camera...)
2. Your next lens: Quantaray Tech-10 24/2.8 AF macro (or Sigma Ultrawide II but you'll pay a little more for the name brand. Same lens). A small wide prime to pair with the 50 for a two-lens combo. Great lens, on par with the Nikon equivalent -- less than $100.
So. You gotchyer fast "prime-prime", a lens with which to pair it. You're set. Want more lenses?
__________________________
Tier 2 35/85
3. Your third lens. A portrait lens. Short-tele. Many to choose from here. I went with the 85/1.8G Nikon.
4. Your 4th lens. A 35. Really you can swap out the 50 and 24 combo if you're a "wedding shooter" -- many of whom use a 35/85 pairing. (Or? As I do, have both parings.) 35 as their main, 85 as their portraiture prime. the 85 "overlaps" with both tiers. Several choices here, I went with the 35/2D. An excellent, overlooked classic.
_________________________________________________________
Tier 3 "The ends" ancillary/optional lenses.
Here you are allowed (in fact it's recommended) you shoot zooms on either side of the prime focal length ranges -- tele and wide.
5. Your 5th lens -- do your homework and get the bast value ultrawide zoom in the 14-35 range. Because these lenses are typlically shot stopped down to f8, f11 on a tripod it almost doesn't matter which one you get. I went with a Tokina 17-35/4.
6. Your 6th lens -- a telephoto in the 70/80 -- 200/300 range. Because I don't shoot telephoto often but this is where things can get really "choppy" with crappy zoom lenses, I prioritized cost and optical performance over all else, and went with an optically good sample of the manual one touch Nikon 80-200/f4.5 -- an $1800 pro lens in its day that can now be had for $50 for a reasonable sample. Plenty of other inexpensive zooms in this range with AF.
The above illustrates a logical decision-making path for gear purchasing. At no point does this path suggest purchasing "THE most sophisticated equipment available". Rather, I am stating outright this the optimal "bang-for-the-buck" path that gives the highest quality IQ for the lowest cost. Under $1000 if you stick with the body and just tier 1 recomendations. That's less than some inferior Amateur Photo System digital in all its "retro-rangefinder" and DSL form factors. The combo I recommended with either the 35 or the 50 recommended is nearly as small and light.
Axel
singleshooter
Shure it does.
And it all is anchored on the ratings of a company you suggest as relevant.
Maybe that´s your way of choosing gear but there is no reason to instruct all others they were wrong.
NickTrop
Veteran
1. Yes. That company is relevant. They provide data baseed on rigorous testing. That data is relevant. Sorry. The sensor in your whatever brand camera does or doesn't measure up with Sony sensors in bit-depth, dynamic range, or low-light performance according to lab testing. Here's how the current crop of sensors rank based on these key metrics. This is how much each costs. Where on that "linear programming" grid is the IQ optimal and the cost minimal? There is only one point where those lines intersect. Down the road that may change. But this is where it is now...
2. Yes. Your choice is wrong because it was likely an emotion-based not reason-based decision. I provided the reason based path, which is a fairly narrow one, right down the line from body to lenses provided your goal is to maximize IQ and minimize cost.
icebear
Veteran
Hey Nick,
besides telling all others they are wrong for not following your personal choice of reason, how did all the gear that you choose based on your assessment, how did this help you to take better pictures?
Show some in the RFF gallery ... w/o exif data please and we will give you feedback on which pictures we think might be better ...for total personal preference obviously and not based on some rigorous testing.
[missing tongue in cheek smiley as well]
besides telling all others they are wrong for not following your personal choice of reason, how did all the gear that you choose based on your assessment, how did this help you to take better pictures?
Show some in the RFF gallery ... w/o exif data please
and we will give you feedback on which pictures we think might be better ...for total personal preference obviously and not based on some rigorous testing. [missing tongue in cheek smiley as well]
gnuyork
Well-known
Exactly.
And if we're talking bang for the buck... my best deal so far has been a barely used mint Leica X2 (Yes APS-C
) with a case for $250. A unique deal, I admit. And while it's limited to a fixed lens, I find I work more creatively with one lens, rather than a bag full. I like the results from the X2 quite lot.Purely for the much less important technical side, while I appreciate digital Full Frame (Canon btw) when it's appropriate and needed, I rarely use my FF for the fun stuff just because I hate carrying DSLRs. I like smaller cameras in general whether FF or APS. My most technically superior digital files come from a fixed lens compact camera with an APS-C sensor and the output rivals all of my digitals, and I would argue some of the earlier Phase One backs (haven't compared recent ones). And of course that is my opinion, crazy as it may seem, but I'm entitled to it.
On top of that, I also shoot more film than digital lately, and I happen to believe the results are superior to digital for my needs and aesthetic.
So I won't be buying the Nikon 600 whatever. It would just collect dust.