Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I am going to be in Tokyo for two weeks next month. I have almost as much fun putting together a kit for a trip, as I do actually going. Yeah . . . bit of a photo nut.
There are three camera choices before me, IQ is excellent in all three:
1) Leica M9/21-35-50-90. Pros: compact; cons: no IBIS, battery life marginal.
2) Nikon D3/21-50-105. Pros: great battery life; cons: heavy, no IBIS
3) Pentax K1/24-70(zoom), 50 (or 31/40/77). Pros: IBIS, better high ISO; cons: no ultrawide.
The Pentax is the new toy -- the files are huge, larger than I need, in fact. But the IQ is astounding -- equal or better to what medium format could give me in the 90's. ISO's up to 3200 are perfectly usable, and it will be winter in Japan -- plenty of darkness. But I don't really have an ultrawide for it, and like to travel with one when I am visiting somewhere new. Also, I am still learning the camera and occasionally have to reset it to factory settings when I don't know how to engage a particular function.
The Leica is probably the sweet spot for file size and quality, although the high ISO usability tops out at 1600. I have a couple of batteries, and can address battery life that way.
The Nikon is the old warhorse. Utterly dependable. I have a full selection of lenses -- no compromises on lens choice. It is heavy, but the battery will go for days. File sizes and resolution are moderate, by today's standards.
So: I'd frame the question this way -- which would you choose? The lenses you feel you need, or the IQ the "latest and greatest" will surely provide?
[Edit: the smart move is no doubt to go with an Oly m 3/4 and a couple of lenses. Smarter (and kinder) for aging back . . .I always overpack, this is a habitual error of mine.] :0
There are three camera choices before me, IQ is excellent in all three:
1) Leica M9/21-35-50-90. Pros: compact; cons: no IBIS, battery life marginal.
2) Nikon D3/21-50-105. Pros: great battery life; cons: heavy, no IBIS
3) Pentax K1/24-70(zoom), 50 (or 31/40/77). Pros: IBIS, better high ISO; cons: no ultrawide.
The Pentax is the new toy -- the files are huge, larger than I need, in fact. But the IQ is astounding -- equal or better to what medium format could give me in the 90's. ISO's up to 3200 are perfectly usable, and it will be winter in Japan -- plenty of darkness. But I don't really have an ultrawide for it, and like to travel with one when I am visiting somewhere new. Also, I am still learning the camera and occasionally have to reset it to factory settings when I don't know how to engage a particular function.
The Leica is probably the sweet spot for file size and quality, although the high ISO usability tops out at 1600. I have a couple of batteries, and can address battery life that way.
The Nikon is the old warhorse. Utterly dependable. I have a full selection of lenses -- no compromises on lens choice. It is heavy, but the battery will go for days. File sizes and resolution are moderate, by today's standards.
So: I'd frame the question this way -- which would you choose? The lenses you feel you need, or the IQ the "latest and greatest" will surely provide?
[Edit: the smart move is no doubt to go with an Oly m 3/4 and a couple of lenses. Smarter (and kinder) for aging back . . .I always overpack, this is a habitual error of mine.] :0