I know, I know. I was being too optimistic 
Ah but it wouldn't sell many Z series cameras though...... - sorry being a cynic
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Help please, can't decide which path to take. Upgrading from D750
- Thread starter Freida
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you settled on a full frame sensor? I also have a D750, but also an Olympus OMD Mk III. I find I use the Olympus much more than the Nikon. Both the body and lenses are at least half the weight, the lenses are less than half the size. For normal size images, you can't tell them apart. The camera also has a Hi-Res mode to allow for an 80MP mode if you are taking a photo of something still. Here if you blow up images from the Nikon and compare, the Olympus is even better.
You will also find that a comparable lens is not only less than half the weight, it's less than half the cost. I have 6 different lenses for the camera, and along with the body fit in a very small camera bag that can easily be carried around all day. The same assortment of lenses for my Nikon would be too much to carry around on a hike.
You will also find that a comparable lens is not only less than half the weight, it's less than half the cost. I have 6 different lenses for the camera, and along with the body fit in a very small camera bag that can easily be carried around all day. The same assortment of lenses for my Nikon would be too much to carry around on a hike.
Among 24x36mm cameras, the F mount has one of the longest registration distances(46.5mm) and a relatively small diameter(44mm). This is longer than any of the Japanese 35mm format SLR mounts I'm familiar with, including the Canon EF and FD mounts, the Pentax K mount, Olympus OM mount, Konica F mount, and several others.
The Z mount on the other hand has one of the shortest registration distances of 24x36mm cameras at 16mm. It's shorter than any other mount I've found listed with a sensor that size. It's also quite large in diameter, although I don't have that spec at hand.
F mount lenses can be stuck on most 24x36mm camera bodies of any make. Z mount lenses can basically only be put on Z cameras if one wants infinity focus(at least absent an optical adapter, which is usually frowned upon). Most 24x36mm lenses of any make could be stuck on a Z mount camera and retain infinity focus, although of course getting adapters that will make say a Canon EF lens fully function on a Z mount camera can be some black magic.
The Z mount on the other hand has one of the shortest registration distances of 24x36mm cameras at 16mm. It's shorter than any other mount I've found listed with a sensor that size. It's also quite large in diameter, although I don't have that spec at hand.
F mount lenses can be stuck on most 24x36mm camera bodies of any make. Z mount lenses can basically only be put on Z cameras if one wants infinity focus(at least absent an optical adapter, which is usually frowned upon). Most 24x36mm lenses of any make could be stuck on a Z mount camera and retain infinity focus, although of course getting adapters that will make say a Canon EF lens fully function on a Z mount camera can be some black magic.
Well, I admit I'm not 'selling' the F-mount system very well, but I haven't 'abandoned' it. What I meant was that I probably won't be buying any current issue F-mount lenses new, especially if there's not a Z-mount equivalent. I might, however, buy something like a s/h tilt/shift type lens, as there are no current Z equivalents, and even when there are, they'll probably be hideously expensive (I like to buy new but the cost has to be justified against how much something will be used; £200 or so on a lens I'll use occasionally is ok, but spending thousands on such isn't). Nikon never bothered updating their popular (amongst portrait photographers at least) DC 105 and 135mm lenses to electronic AF versions, because the type of people who'd want to buy those would have cams with mechanical AF capability, and wouldn't be needing the super fast AF of the newer AF-S lenses.
The main problem with such a small sensor size is, after inferior IQ especially in lowlight, that in order to get shallow depth of field as favoured in portrait photography, you need very fast lenses. Because the DoF is relative to focal length. So for eg; to match the DoF of a 50mm f1.8 lens, you'd need a 25mm f0.9 in the MFT mount. The fastest Olympus do is a 25mm f1.2, which equates to a 50mm f2.4 in full frame. There is quite a significant difference in DoF between f1.8 and 2.4, especially at close focussing distances. That 25mm lens is very expensive; you can buy a new Z-mount 50 f1.8 for less than a s/h 25mm f1.2. And the Nikkor is an optically superior lens all round. MFT isn't that cheap if you get into it very deeply. Yes, you have effectively twice the tele 'reach' of FF, but you lose big time at the wide end, and it starts to get pricey. Given that Panasonic now see MFT as mainly a video format, and Olympus have undergone a big change in terms of company ownership and structure, MFT might not be the enduring format the OP really wants...
This is what I should have added. I'm a very long way from really knowing about this sort of stuff, but as I understand it, a larger flange diameter allows for a larger image circle diameter, which means the captured image is from the central portion of the ICD rather than the extreme edges, so can be sharper and less distorted etc. The Flange distance relates also to image quality, but something to do with different wavelengths (think colours) of light converging at different distances or something. yes, that is a dreadful attempt at an explanation I agree, but if someone cleverer can explain it, then please go ahead!
This is sort of in the right area:
Is Sony's E-Mount "Too Small"? Let's Put This Debate Out Of Its Misery
Hopefully, once you know all the facts, you can move on to more important things in your creative journey.
www.slrlounge.com
TL
R; basically full frame is betterer and the larger lens mounts made by Canon and Nikon, together with the closer flange distances of ML cams, theoretically offer better image quality, but stuff is already so good so whatevs.
The main problem with such a small sensor size is, after inferior IQ especially in lowlight, that in order to get shallow depth of field as favoured in portrait photography, you need very fast lenses. Because the DoF is relative to focal length. So for eg; to match the DoF of a 50mm f1.8 lens, you'd need a 25mm f0.9 in the MFT mount. The fastest Olympus do is a 25mm f1.2, which equates to a 50mm f2.4 in full frame. There is quite a significant difference in DoF between f1.8 and 2.4, especially at close focussing distances. That 25mm lens is very expensive; you can buy a new Z-mount 50 f1.8 for less than a s/h 25mm f1.2. And the Nikkor is an optically superior lens all round. MFT isn't that cheap if you get into it very deeply. Yes, you have effectively twice the tele 'reach' of FF, but you lose big time at the wide end, and it starts to get pricey. Given that Panasonic now see MFT as mainly a video format, and Olympus have undergone a big change in terms of company ownership and structure, MFT might not be the enduring format the OP really wants...
This is what I should have added. I'm a very long way from really knowing about this sort of stuff, but as I understand it, a larger flange diameter allows for a larger image circle diameter, which means the captured image is from the central portion of the ICD rather than the extreme edges, so can be sharper and less distorted etc. The Flange distance relates also to image quality, but something to do with different wavelengths (think colours) of light converging at different distances or something. yes, that is a dreadful attempt at an explanation I agree, but if someone cleverer can explain it, then please go ahead!
This is sort of in the right area:
Is Sony's E-Mount "Too Small"? Let's Put This Debate Out Of Its Misery
Hopefully, once you know all the facts, you can move on to more important things in your creative journey.
TL
That was an interesting article.....and Sony has certainly been busy over the past three years since that article was written. As was mentioned, Sony has an excellent range of lenses and did three years ago as well -- and now they are thoughtfully redoing some lenses which were fine back then but which in their latest iterations are absolutely stellar, such as the recently released 24-70mm f/2.8 GM II and the 70-200mm f/2.8 GM II. Now many Sony users are awaiting the (presumable) arrival of an updated 85mm GM, as that lens is another which could benefit from a reworking.
The article asks: "Will we ever actually see a Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM? Maybe," Well, I can answer that with an emphatic "yes!" It's a fantastic lens which can produce stunning results. I think it came out around the same time that the A1 (which, yes, also has that E/FE mount) did. Also not too long ago Sony released the remarkable 12-24mm f/2.8 GM lens -- a wonder to behold and a wonder to actually use.
This autumn Sony has just released the A7R V, which, like the rest of the brand's FF mirrorless lineup, has the same small (in overall physical dimensions) body and an amazing amount of technology under the hood, much of which is new and/or improved over previous generations. Since they are still using the E/FE mount, apparently they don't find any issues with a mount which has proven to be quite versatile and successful over the years.
There are rumors that if Sony ever does move to a larger mount that this would be only because there would be a medium-format sensor under the hood of whatever body contains it. Certainly their current 61 mp sensor has served well in the A7R IV and presumably will continue to do so in the new A7R V. Actually, Sony already makes medium-format sensors for others; probably it is just a matter of time before they do announce a MF body with a very large sensor and some accompanying MF lenses of their own....
Last edited:
Yes in practical terms, there's really nothing to choose between manufacturers. Theoretical and minute 'test'* differences will be absolutelt neglible in real world use. So not worth worrying about.
*Be mindful that 'tests' such as those performed by DxO Mark etc, are done using the respective cams for each lens mount. So you can never see a true objective side by side performance of a range of lenses on say one single body, which would give you a much better indication of genuine performance levels. Very often, the differences are purely subjective and at the whim of the sensibilities of the 'tester'.
*Be mindful that 'tests' such as those performed by DxO Mark etc, are done using the respective cams for each lens mount. So you can never see a true objective side by side performance of a range of lenses on say one single body, which would give you a much better indication of genuine performance levels. Very often, the differences are purely subjective and at the whim of the sensibilities of the 'tester'.
I've never been one to test out cameras and lenses by shooting a brick wall or some weird chart. I buy a camera, buy a lens which I think will do what I need and want, and go out and shoot with the setup. If at some point that lens doesn't do what I need, I use another one which will shoot the type of scene or at the distance I need. I am not a pixel-peeper and it fascinates me when on various photography forums I see posts from people who are.
DXO's PhotoLab 6 and I assume other photo editing programs also do analyze a given lens and produce a "module" or "profile" for that lens in order to get the maximum benefit of that lens' particular qualities.
So far (just over three years) I have been more than happy with my Sony gear and the results I've gotten from it. Looking forward to additional years of shooting with it.
DXO's PhotoLab 6 and I assume other photo editing programs also do analyze a given lens and produce a "module" or "profile" for that lens in order to get the maximum benefit of that lens' particular qualities.
So far (just over three years) I have been more than happy with my Sony gear and the results I've gotten from it. Looking forward to additional years of shooting with it.
The flange distance isn't actually a huge deal other than lens compatibility at least once you get into the realm of mirrorless lenses.
Basically on a DSLR, you need space for mirror between the focal plane(film/sensor) and the back of the lens.
Why you care about that comes down to focal length of the lens attached. Basically, focal length(generally) is defined as the distance from the optical center of the lens to the focal plane when focused at infinity. On a simple lens design, the geometric center(halfway point between the front and rearmost element) is also more-or-less the optical center.
Most 24x36mm format SLRs have a flange focal distance of 40-50mm. That's not an issue when dealing with longer focal length lenses-say an 85mm or 105mm lens-as the optical center is naturally going to sit plenty far away from the focal plane and there's room for the lens mount, linkages, etc. Incidentally, you'll often find that lenses in this range of focal length are optically excellent and that comes down to the fact that they are fundamentally simple optically.
Of course this means that long focal length lenses can become unwieldy, so that's where the "telephoto" group comes in. Incidentally, "telephoto" refers to a specific optical design characteristic and is not a synonym for "long focal length" lens. A telephoto group added to a lens design shifts the optical center rear of the geometric center. Telephoto groups can be bought and used as their own separate add-on to a lens-we call those "teleconverters", but more often they're integrated into lens design. A lens designer doesn't want to go too extreme with shifting the optical center back as that introduces its own problems that can often be fixed with even more expensive optical solutions, but it's still there. For this reason, flange focal distance also doesn't really matter on telephoto lenses.
As a bit of a sidenote too since I also use Hasselblad V mount cameras-the flange distance on those is 60-some-odd millimeters(I've been working on this post way too long, this is a late addendum, and I don't feel like looking it up). The ubquitous "standard" V-mount lens is the 80mm f/2.8 Zeiss Planar. This is a big 6 element lens. It's also a slight retrofocus design. It's been widely known as long as I've been in medium format that the 80mm f/2.8 Planar fitted to a Rolleiflex of the same age as a given V-mount Planar is a better lens(plus is a simpler 5 element design and smaller). This bothered some Zeiss/Hasselblad engineers enough that they released the 100mm f/3.5 Planar-a non-retrofocus lens that's supposedly optically "perfect"(it's too rich for my blood and the 80mmm is good enough plus honestly better for my needs than a slower, longer lens).
Obviously too the mirror causes issues when you get to short focal lengths. On the Nikon F mount, this tends to start happening around the 60mm focal length, and of course as you get to shorter focal lengths this gets more pronounced. The solution to that is what's called a retrofocus design, which is essentially a "reverse telephoto" group that shifts the optical center forward of the geometric center. Even Nikon's 50mm lenses need some amount of retrofocus to work properly(and the very early F mount normal lens was actually 58mm to lessen the burden of this). Leicas and other rangefinders have always excelled at shorter focal lengths because, among other things, they can just keep scooting the rear element back further without worrying about a mirror in the way. Some early SLR lenses did this as well-they required mirror lock-up on the camera and an external viewfinder.
Mirrorless digital offers much of the same advantages as a viewfinder, but with an important caveat that's specific to digital cameras and not really a concern in film. The microlens array over digital sensors is sensitive to angle of incidence of light on the sensor. In any DSLR, even with designs like Canon EF-S lenses where the rear element location takes advatage of the smaller mirror possible in an APS-C format camera, there's no concern of the rear element being close enough for this to happen.
In any mirrorless digital, whether rangefinders or EVF cameras, that concern/possibility is very much there. Still, though, in general normal to wide normal lenses(say 35mm-50mm), which would be retrofocus designs on a (D)SLR, can be simple lenses. Even ultra-wides need a less extreme retrofocus design than for a mirror camera. Nikon has made two 14mm rectilinear f/2.8 lenses with 24x36mm coverage I'm aware of-a prime and a zoom. Both are big lenses, the zoom especially so, and are not particularly strong performers. There was also the 13mm manual focus prime, which is optically superb and almost totally distortion free(something the designers care less about in digital era lenses since it's so easy to fix in post or even in-camera) but is massive and also relatively slow. Everything I've seen of the Z mount 14-24mm f/2.8 is that it's smaller, lighter, and better than the F mount version.
And this to me is, optically, where I seem to see the most improvements in mirrorless optics. The teles I've seen look to be at best incremental improvements over their DSLR counterparts, and honestly if they were made in F mount I expect once wouldn't see much difference in their performance between say a Z7 and a D850. It's also telling to me that one of the more recent marquis lenses-the 120-300mm f/2.8-was made in F mount, although most speculation was that this was a 2020 Olympics prestige lens and for most Nikon invested sports photographers the D6 was going to serve them better than any Z mount camera then available. The D6 comes up short in resolution and absolute frame rate compared to the Z9, but everything I've seen is that it's a very capable camera for action and especially with focus tracking.
One other thing-the f/.95 Noct-Nikkor I'm pretty sure would not be possible on the F-mount thanks to mount diameter. If it were I expect Nikon would have made one as Canon made an f/1.0 lens in EF mount(the Canon and Leica f/.95 lenses were rangefinder lenses and free of retrofocus limitations).
I wouldn't really consider a 50 mm lens as a portrait lens.
When I first went into the m4/3 I was worried about sensor size. I came up shooting weddings with an RB67 pro S on 120 roll film back in the 70's and 80's, and would often use my 4x5 view for formal portrait work. So bigger is better was always on my mind.
However now, I shoot mostly on travel, some nature work, my gemstones, and just snapshots. For this the Olympus system is way more appropriate. I can put a pancake lens on it that performs really well covering a full frame equivalent of 28-82 mm and put the camera with lens attached in my jacket pocket. Sure you can find certain situations were a full frame will provide a nicer image, but for 95% of what most people shoot and do with the images the difference will not be seen.
Here's a comparison of a new Nikon Mirrorless camera and the OM-1 with some lenses to start out with. I didn't total the weights, but I would guess the OM system is about 1/3 the weight and size bag. The lenses for each basically the same range, with a little more on OM side.
Right now the OM body and lenses are on sale, so the total would be about $1000 less than what I show in the table below. So the setup would be 1/3 the price of the Nikon. I think for the OP, they would be hard press to justify the price difference compared to any noticeable difference in image quality, plus have a system that can easily be carried around.
Attachments
Last edited:
Thank you but I wouldn't go for Olympus. I only consider the top 3 brands and that is Nikon, Canon and Sony.
I'm weird this way but I would rather pay more for better quality,support etc. than save a bit at the beginning and then regret later.
In fact, thats why I have everything Apple. They made it to last. Olympus to me sounds like Lenovo
Sorry but thats how I see it.
I'm weird this way but I would rather pay more for better quality,support etc. than save a bit at the beginning and then regret later.
In fact, thats why I have everything Apple. They made it to last. Olympus to me sounds like Lenovo
Sorry but thats how I see it.
We see things differently. I consider Sony a transistor radio company. Olympus has been making cameras's a lot lot lot longer than Sony. I bought my first Olympus in 1976, still going strong.Thank you but I wouldn't go for Olympus. I only consider the top 3 brands and that is Nikon, Canon and Sony.
I'm weird this way but I would rather pay more for better quality,support etc. than save a bit at the beginning and then regret later.
In fact, thats why I have everything Apple. They made it to last. Olympus to me sounds like Lenovo
Sorry but thats how I see it.
I think digital camera's are another thing, kind of like a computer, every few years the technology leaps forward and what you thought was the state of the art is now old technology. My current iMac 27 Retina 5k late 2014 is now considered absolute by Apple and worth nothing. When I bought it was the top of line iMac.
I understand your point here. Its true.
In terms of Sony, well Sony makes all the chip for all the brands including Apple.
Also, I have Sony tv and the reason for that is that they have the best image processor on the market.
I don't deny that Olympus is good I just prefer to go with the big ones when it comes to tech. I try to apply the same logic to other areas. There is nothing worse than buying something and then find out few years later that the manufacturer is out of business and you can't get it fixed. (among other things)
I think I'll stick with Full Frame if we go back to the camera talk. Lets see what 2023 brings ;-)
In terms of Sony, well Sony makes all the chip for all the brands including Apple.
Also, I have Sony tv and the reason for that is that they have the best image processor on the market.
I don't deny that Olympus is good I just prefer to go with the big ones when it comes to tech. I try to apply the same logic to other areas. There is nothing worse than buying something and then find out few years later that the manufacturer is out of business and you can't get it fixed. (among other things)
I think I'll stick with Full Frame if we go back to the camera talk. Lets see what 2023 brings ;-)
Well since you want to go with the big ones, have you considered a Hasselblad X2D 100C or a Leica SL2 Mirrorless. Maybe you don't think of Hasselblad and Leica as quality camera makers that have been around for some time?
What do you want to photograph? Maybe you are best off just using your iPhone 14.
Olympus is without question one of the finest optical companies in the world. They’re on par with Zeiss, Leica, and Nikon.
I never have been much into Olympus cameras but do have an OM-1(film), OM-2 and a couple of OM mount lenses around just because they are such fantastic little mechanical and optical gems.
Don’t overlook the fact too that like Nikon, Olympus makes a lot of microscopes and other industrial/scientific optics. I’d not personally be concerned about them going anywhere.
I never have been much into Olympus cameras but do have an OM-1(film), OM-2 and a couple of OM mount lenses around just because they are such fantastic little mechanical and optical gems.
Don’t overlook the fact too that like Nikon, Olympus makes a lot of microscopes and other industrial/scientific optics. I’d not personally be concerned about them going anywhere.
I know those 2 are meant to be amazing but in all honesty I don't like the look of them. They look more like a toy to me. I know they are not and I know Leica is considered one of the best (if not THE best) but it reminds me those plastic film cameras in the 90's. In fact, my first film camera was a bit like that.
I got Nikon because it was meant to be the great brand and Canon was second when I was getting my D90 in 2010 in San Francisco. Maybe, thats where I went wrong and maybe those 'toy' cameras would actually be suited better for me. Who knows.
Right now, I got used to the look of current cameras and Leica just looks like a toy to me even though I know its not. When Jony Ive designed the Leica - it was stunning but it still looked like a toy.
Maybe its the wrong angle though - Maybe thats what cameras should be in the first place. You have shutter speed, aperture and ISO buttons/dials and then thats it. Little joystick for AF points and done.
Maybe in the future we will go back to that and simplify. I don't know, I'm thinking out loud here. Its probably just a silly thought anyway. Ignore me
I got Nikon because it was meant to be the great brand and Canon was second when I was getting my D90 in 2010 in San Francisco. Maybe, thats where I went wrong and maybe those 'toy' cameras would actually be suited better for me. Who knows.
Right now, I got used to the look of current cameras and Leica just looks like a toy to me even though I know its not. When Jony Ive designed the Leica - it was stunning but it still looked like a toy.
Maybe its the wrong angle though - Maybe thats what cameras should be in the first place. You have shutter speed, aperture and ISO buttons/dials and then thats it. Little joystick for AF points and done.
Maybe in the future we will go back to that and simplify. I don't know, I'm thinking out loud here. Its probably just a silly thought anyway. Ignore me
I gotta say....I've never considered how a camera looks when I buy it. I'm more concerned with what it produces than what it looks like to others. Also probably the first and only time someone will say Leica looks like a toy.
Y'all are forgetting Fujifilm. 🙂 Although they only make crop and medium format, no full frame.
Y'all are forgetting Fujifilm. 🙂 Although they only make crop and medium format, no full frame.
I think that is the problem these days. Most people don't care about design (in general) so we get crap products (not talking about cameras now).
Just look at the Monitors offering - its still crazy for me that no one really tries to make beautiful monitor apart from Apple. If more people demanded better quality then we would overall win in the end.
I believe that design should always be one of the most important things when creating a new product in any category. As they say, good design is also invisible in many areas.
Anyway, not picking up on you - its just that you've reminded me why there are so many ugly looking products with poor build quality.
I think you forgot Kodak as well. That company drove itself to zero
Just look at the Monitors offering - its still crazy for me that no one really tries to make beautiful monitor apart from Apple. If more people demanded better quality then we would overall win in the end.
I believe that design should always be one of the most important things when creating a new product in any category. As they say, good design is also invisible in many areas.
Anyway, not picking up on you - its just that you've reminded me why there are so many ugly looking products with poor build quality.
I think you forgot Kodak as well. That company drove itself to zero
If I recall correctly, many, if not most, Leica cameras are rangefinders, and that is a different way of shooting than using a camera with TTL (through the lens viewing).
As for the "looking like a toy" aspect, my small Sony RX100 VII is small and innocuous looking, although not cheap-looking, and actually, under the hood it is quite sophisticated. It's considered an "enthusiast's compact" camera, or, some people just view it as a fancy P&S. It offers many more functions and certainly a lot more control over one's images than a lot of P&S cameras do. That said, I would not and never have used the RX100 as my only camera.
Moving up the size and appearance ladder a bit one comes across the RX10 IV "bridge" camera, which really is a surprisingly sophisticated camera (not a toy-sized item at all, it is more like a small DSLR or a current mirrorless body, and feels like one) with a wonderful Zeiss lens with a truly surprising power zoom range of 24mm-600mm (35mm equivalent, because this thing is on a 1" sensor with I think it's 24 MP). When I bought mine with specific intentions for a particular trip in mind, I liked the range it offered and the fact that there was a fixed zoom and that I had plenty of opportunity to set controls the way I wanted, but that 1" sensor.... I raised my eyebrows at that. I bought the camera anyway and used it on that particular vacation. I was truly surprised at the quality of images it can produce under many conditions. After I got home, as I've mentioned in earlier posts I kept on using that camera because I was having so darned much fun with it and rediscovering a lot of the joy of photography in a new way. Didn't have to change lenses to go from a nice scenic shot to a closeup, very near macro shot, all with the one camera and lens. 24mm-600mm is a huge range!
All that said, of course that camera has limitations and eventually I knew I wanted to get back to more "serious" photography with interchangeable lenses and all that. I've still got that RX10 IV and probably the only way I would ever give it up is if Sony comes out with an RX10 V, which is quite doubtful. It's the camera I grab when I look out the window and see some action going on in the lake, and there just isn't going to be enough time to quickly grab and mount a long lens to my A1. I grab the RX10 IV and fire her up as I'm opening the door to the deck and by the time I've gotten out there, ready to shoot, ready to choose my focal length, the action is usually still going on and I have the opportunity to fire away at it.
The RX10 IV, by its very nature, is also a dandy travel camera, and I've used it on a couple of trips (prior to COVID-19) and if I ever manage to once again start traveling, that will probably be the camera that goes along with me, more for convenience than anything, but of course that all depends upon a given trip and destination, etc.
As for the "looking like a toy" aspect, my small Sony RX100 VII is small and innocuous looking, although not cheap-looking, and actually, under the hood it is quite sophisticated. It's considered an "enthusiast's compact" camera, or, some people just view it as a fancy P&S. It offers many more functions and certainly a lot more control over one's images than a lot of P&S cameras do. That said, I would not and never have used the RX100 as my only camera.
Moving up the size and appearance ladder a bit one comes across the RX10 IV "bridge" camera, which really is a surprisingly sophisticated camera (not a toy-sized item at all, it is more like a small DSLR or a current mirrorless body, and feels like one) with a wonderful Zeiss lens with a truly surprising power zoom range of 24mm-600mm (35mm equivalent, because this thing is on a 1" sensor with I think it's 24 MP). When I bought mine with specific intentions for a particular trip in mind, I liked the range it offered and the fact that there was a fixed zoom and that I had plenty of opportunity to set controls the way I wanted, but that 1" sensor.... I raised my eyebrows at that. I bought the camera anyway and used it on that particular vacation. I was truly surprised at the quality of images it can produce under many conditions. After I got home, as I've mentioned in earlier posts I kept on using that camera because I was having so darned much fun with it and rediscovering a lot of the joy of photography in a new way. Didn't have to change lenses to go from a nice scenic shot to a closeup, very near macro shot, all with the one camera and lens. 24mm-600mm is a huge range!
All that said, of course that camera has limitations and eventually I knew I wanted to get back to more "serious" photography with interchangeable lenses and all that. I've still got that RX10 IV and probably the only way I would ever give it up is if Sony comes out with an RX10 V, which is quite doubtful. It's the camera I grab when I look out the window and see some action going on in the lake, and there just isn't going to be enough time to quickly grab and mount a long lens to my A1. I grab the RX10 IV and fire her up as I'm opening the door to the deck and by the time I've gotten out there, ready to shoot, ready to choose my focal length, the action is usually still going on and I have the opportunity to fire away at it.
The RX10 IV, by its very nature, is also a dandy travel camera, and I've used it on a couple of trips (prior to COVID-19) and if I ever manage to once again start traveling, that will probably be the camera that goes along with me, more for convenience than anything, but of course that all depends upon a given trip and destination, etc.
Ummm…Leica kind of invented the 24x36mm format still camera…some would argue that anything else is an imitation. I didn’t particularly enjoy my IIIc when I had it but not for quality reasons.
When I am purchasing a new camera body I want to check out how it feels in my hands, first and foremost. Sure it is nice if the camera looks (to my eyes) attractive, but that's not a deal-killer. Reality is that some camera bodies are sleek and elegant, others are bulky. Some are heavy, some are lighter in weight and overall dimensions. Some are festooned with buttons and dials, some are trying to bring back the past going all the way back to the way many film cameras used to look, while others hearken back to digital days of yore by presenting a mirrorless camera looking rather hefty and bulky, more like a DSLR. But, yeah, for me the bottom line is not how the thing looks but the results it can help me, the photographer, address shooting situations and get the results I want, and how it feels in day-to-day operation.
That said, I do think the cameras from the past, early on during the last century and such, are quite intriguing and attractive in their own right, regardless of whatever images they may still be capable of presenting. They're fun to see!
Nowadays when preparing to shoot something in this century, this day and age, with a camera that is current and modern, I want the buttons and dials that ARE on the camera body to be useful to me and also instinctive and quick and easy to utilize and then on-the-fly adjust under changing conditions. I want things to be handy on the body while I'm shooting rather than having to menu-dive to make an adjustment. I also want the menu to be reasonably easy to use as well, both during the initial setup of a new camera and later on as one becomes more familiar with it and wants to make some changes. Kudos to Sony, here -- they finally listened to the many complaints about their older menu and with newer cameras comes the newer menu, which is indeed a lot better. (Of course, after having become pretty accustomed to the old menu it took me a while to adjust to the new menu when I was presented with it in the A1! Go figure....)
Last edited:
I've bought a good portion of my cameras sight unseen. Or rather, seen in a photo but not held. I find the features I want, figure if the output gives me what I want, and then figure out how to use it when I get it.
I think I've only tested two cameras total before buying.
I think I've only tested two cameras total before buying.
I think Freida's problem with her D750 is two fold.
1. She has the wrong lens. She should have, if only one lens a zoom from maybe 24 to 150 mm, somewhere in that range.
2. She has in her mind that a mirrorless camera will work better for her.
One of my favorite lenses for the Nikon, and one that is on my camera more than most any other lenses I own is the Nikon AF 28-105. I even has macro capabilities, is fairly compact. This lens hasn't been made since the film days, but you can buy one used on eBay. If you decide to move to mirrorless in the future, list it on eBay, and I'm sure you can sell it for what you paid for it.
1. She has the wrong lens. She should have, if only one lens a zoom from maybe 24 to 150 mm, somewhere in that range.
2. She has in her mind that a mirrorless camera will work better for her.
One of my favorite lenses for the Nikon, and one that is on my camera more than most any other lenses I own is the Nikon AF 28-105. I even has macro capabilities, is fairly compact. This lens hasn't been made since the film days, but you can buy one used on eBay. If you decide to move to mirrorless in the future, list it on eBay, and I'm sure you can sell it for what you paid for it.
I like great design too. It's subjective and "what we love" can vary amongst friendsI think that is the problem these days. Most people don't care about design (in general) so we get crap products (not talking about cameras now).
Just look at the Monitors offering - its still crazy for me that no one really tries to make beautiful monitor apart from Apple. If more people demanded better quality then we would overall win in the end.
I believe that design should always be one of the most important things when creating a new product in any category. As they say, good design is also invisible in many areas.
Anyway, not picking up on you - its just that you've reminded me why there are so many ugly looking products with poor build quality.
I think you forgot Kodak as well. That company drove itself to zero
. I like the Nikon, Hasselblad and Leica design languages, and even some of the original Olympus designs. All entirely personal, of course. It's external of objective quality but one can inform the other. All of the ones listed are I feel of exceptional quality too, so that's awesome. In particular on the optical side, which is so important. A Leica lens is an amazing thing, for example, whether for their "modern mirrorless" (SL series) , "world's first mirrorless" (M-series rangefinder) or S-series (medium format). Hard to beat. As is Nikon. And Hassy. And Olympus. Exceptional quality. They have a rich, rich history of optical amazingness, those companies. Others, such as camera bodies designed by Mamyia and with descendents in the world today (Phase One) are very well designed but not necessarily aesthetically pleasing. But the optics that go with them by Schneider are amazing. "Tech cameras" (pancake or view cameras with movements) by Alpa, Cambo, Arca Swiss are lovely and extremely well built as well as functional (with lenses by Rodenstock mostly, older lenses by Schneider). I find Fuji design language to be very nice too and certainly their optics are exceptional. And their color science.As an aside, money is a funny thing. Leica had their best year ever in 2021. Go figure.
But anyway, those are my particular likes. Others love Canon or Sony. Or Panasonic. And really, they're all truly excellent. Every person is different. You're different. It's a great world out there full of nice-n-shiny but also very well built, well functioning cameras. In every meaningful way, it literally doesn't matter even slightly what modern-ish camera you end up with. It depends on your style and what you like design-wise or menu-wise or lens-wise or... There literally isn't an objectively "better" one. You choose the specifics that you feel may be relavent to you, choose the brand that you feel comes closest to what you feel you're after at the time, and you're off to the races.
Last edited:
They wont do it but they could do it using say a Leica M mount lens on an adapter. Not perfect scientific conditions but a consistent lens on all cameras to test.