advertisement


Camera Shopping again

C

cliffpatte

Speed camera anarchist
Having got a teeny weeny bit bored with the limitations of APS sized sensors in my first two DSLRs (Fuji S1 Pro and S5 Pro) and the same limitation in my Leica M8, I am now considering a full seized sensor camera - ie the Nikon D3.

Apart from the obvious high price, is there anything else against the D3? I already have some "standard" lenses from Nikon, so it should be straight forward to use without the 2/3rds calculation you need with a standard lens and a "DX" sized sensor.

Or is this the way to madness, and I should really be buying a Leica R series and a full set of darkroom equipment?

Cliff
 
Buy the Nikon and give me the Leica.

If I had the money, I'd buy the Nikon D3 and the Zeiss 35mm and 50mm ZF lenses.
 
Mr Cat said:
what kind of limitations are you experiencing with your current cameras..?
Click to expand...

The size of the sensors means that every lens does less than it should. 35mm lenses become 50mm lenses, and short telephoto lenses become long ones. Its very hard to take wide angle pictures without using ridiculously wide angled lenses. I'd quite like to go back to having a 35mm lens be wide angle and 24mm be super wide angle, rather than those two sizes be indistinguishable from 50mm.

Also the ISO limit on the S5 and M8 is such that in low light, you get serious image distortion especially when shooting with an Fstop of 8 or more. In perfect light and when you actually want a 50mm lens type of image the M8 is pretty much perfect, but its not so good in low light and I don't really want a bag full of lenses to go with a camera that when you remove the lens acts as a dust magnet.

Cliff

(PS Yes I do have a tripod, but subjects don't necessarily stay still enough)
 
A signed Batey and a signed Vuksanovic and a signed Gursky would be worth approximately 50% of the value of your camera collection Cliff.

I mean , seriously, how can you possibly need a new camera?
 
Cliff,

The D3 is Nikon's best effort, and along with its being full frame it also has a high ISO advantage. Nikon deliberately optimized for low noise at high ISO instead of trying to out-resolve Canon's full-frame models.

But -- and it's a big butt -- the D3 is a big, heavy camera. All I can say is that after I sold my D2H for an S5 and stopped using my F4 in place of a luvurly FM3a I'd be hard-pressed to go back to a "pro" body again. They're just too big and bulky to be toted around, especially when I have to tote around a 35-pound three-year-old as well.

185115660-L.jpg


If I were in your shoes I'd keep what you have and put effort into getting the best photographs you can out of each camera. It's not like an M8 and S5 are crap. If you need to scratch the consumer itch, get a nice lens or two for either camera.

Joe
 
A full-frame sensor is a wonderful thing. So don't take the following as negative.

However...
you have an S5Pro and an M8. These are both very capable cameras. I'd think hard about why you 'need' full-frame (not that I'm saying you don't). What I guess I'm trying to say is full-frame isn't magic. A lot of people buy into some stupid mythos about it. It gives you very specific things - you may or may not need them. If all you want is a wider lens why not buy a wider lens? (you also get the benefit on a crop of using the best part of any lens).

A D3 is possibly slightly overkill. If all you want is full-frame then an EOS 5D is about half the price and not far off in high-ISO performance (although, a bit long in the tooth these days if that kind of thing matters to you). Of course, it's not a 'pro' body. That's good or bad, depending whether you actually need the pro features (9/11fps, weather sealing, 51 AF points etc.) and can be bothered to haul around a serious chunk of camera. A used 1Ds is an excellent body and also inexpensive (relative to a new D3). It loses to the 5D only in high-ISO performance, size and weight.


On the other hand the D3 is a very, very nice camera. If you have the disposable income then hey, why not? The D3 is very much a sports/photojournalist camera. If you don't need the speed but are after resolution then I'd look at a 1Ds3 (even 1Ds2) too if you're basically looking to buy the best you can at this point in time.
Also, bear in mind that
a) Canon will undoubtedly soon be replacing the 5D with something better and full-frame
b) Sony are getting into the full-frame game with a 'prosumer' priced, twenty-something megapixel full-frame body later this year.
edit: c) What guy said.

andy
 
I'd wait too for a small body FF Nikon rather the buying the D3. Big 'Pro' bodies are pretty hideous and heavy.

What lenses have you got for the Leica? The crop's 1.3 isn't it? So you should be able to get some super-duper Voigtlander super-wides to play with, like the 15mm.
 
guybat said:
I'd wait too for a small body FF Nikon rather the buying the D3. Big 'Pro' bodies are pretty hideous and heavy.

What lenses have you got for the Leica? The crop's 1.3 isn't it? So you should be able to get some super-duper Voigtlander super-wides to play with, like the 15mm.
Click to expand...

I only have one lens for the Leica - The Summicron 35:2. Its pretty much what the camera was designed to work best with. I'm sure you can get some wide angle lenses at reasonable prices, but what a pain changing lenses with the M8 is - open it up in anything other than a dust free room and you get the inevitable dust spot on the sensor. And you can't clean the sensor with anything other than a fully charged battery.

P.I.T.A.
:(
 
It won't be me. I'm saving up for a new pair of socks.

Joe
 
cliffpatte said:
The size of the sensors means that every lens does less than it should. 35mm lenses become 50mm lenses, and short telephoto lenses become long ones. Its very hard to take wide angle pictures without using ridiculously wide angled lenses. I'd quite like to go back to having a 35mm lens be wide angle and 24mm be super wide angle, rather than those two sizes be indistinguishable from 50mm.

Also the ISO limit on the S5 and M8 is such that in low light, you get serious image distortion especially when shooting with an Fstop of 8 or more. In perfect light and when you actually want a 50mm lens type of image the M8 is pretty much perfect, but its not so good in low light and I don't really want a bag full of lenses to go with a camera that when you remove the lens acts as a dust magnet.

Cliff

(PS Yes I do have a tripod, but subjects don't necessarily stay still enough)
Click to expand...


cheers for that - just that i have a canon 400d...I'm happy with that but I can't really justify buying a full sensor yet...!
 
Extra points for telling me whether I should buy the Nikon D40 or the Pentax k100d. I'm leaning towards the pentax because of the anti shake and playing nicely with older lenses.
 
jimb0 said:
Extra points for telling me whether I should buy the Nikon D40 or the Pentax k100d. I'm leaning towards the pentax because of the anti shake and playing nicely with older lenses.
Click to expand...

jim.

here are some pictures i've taken over the past year or so on my pentax, ALL with a lens i purchased for $75 (the fanatastic SMC 50mm f/1.4):

http://vukfoto.com/exhib/snow_trees

http://vukfoto.com/exhib/inside

http://vukfoto.com/exhib/simple

http://vukfoto.com/exhib/jupiter_mix

http://vukfoto.com/exhib/sunset

http://vukfoto.com/exhib/winter2007

http://vukfoto.com/exhib/fall2006

http://vukfoto.com/exhib/end_fall2006


if you don't like the results, then perhaps you should look into nikon or canon--although the canon 50mm has similar characteristics.


vuk.
 
Cliff,

The size of the sensors means that every lens does less than it should. 35mm lenses become 50mm lenses, and short telephoto lenses become long ones. Its very hard to take wide angle pictures without using ridiculously wide angled lenses. I'd quite like to go back to having a 35mm lens be wide angle and 24mm be super wide angle, rather than those two sizes be indistinguishable from 50mm.
Click to expand...
With the 1.5x crop of a 16x24mm sensor relative film-sized sensors, a 24mm lens is still wide, giving you the angle of view of a 35mm lens. So it's wide, just not super wide, so if that's the issue why not get the 12-24mm zoom, which gives the same angles of view as an 18-35mm lens on a film body.


Also the ISO limit on the S5 and M8 is such that in low light, you get serious image distortion especially when shooting with an Fstop of 8 or more. In perfect light and when you actually want a 50mm lens type of image the M8 is pretty much perfect, but its not so good in low light and I don't really want a bag full of lenses to go with a camera that when you remove the lens acts as a dust magnet.
Click to expand...
I don't know about the M8, but the S5 is still good at ISO 800 and certainly useable at ISO 1600. Can you post a picture you think would have been better if you had taken it with a D3 at even higher ISOs?

Joe
 
jimb0 said:
Extra points for telling me whether I should buy the Nikon D40 or the Pentax k100d. I'm leaning towards the pentax because of the anti shake and playing nicely with older lenses.
Click to expand...

I've just been faced with this exact dilemma and just today got myself a brand new K100d Super for £279.99 :D

Vuk: $75 for that lens! I'm jealous - can only find it on amazon here for £160 :(

Can't wait to get snapping!

Lefty
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top