Help with changing systems
Yes, this is another "what camera should I buy" post. I've gone through the 1st 15 pages of the cameras forum and read all I could find. I'm still going to post about my specific situation though because I've still got questions and because, let's be honest, you guys really like answering these threads! :rofl
I'm leaving Sony and moving to Canon or Nikon. There is one and only one reason for this move: better images at higher ISO. On the A700 anything above ISO800 is useless and ISO800 itself is pretty bad. I went through tons of high end glass looking for something that would fix the problem but it was to no avail. The camera just does a poor job at higher ISOs. I'm looking to replace my existing lens lineup because I really, really liked it. The most pressing question is, of course, what system, and what camera?
I take pictures at home, indoors, of my kid - and I'm competent using bounce-flash (really liked the wireless bounce I had with Sony). I also take pictures several times a year of a large group of men and boys at civil war battlefields. This requires some zoom. I'm open to any and all suggestions. I should mention that I've got little to no interest in video. I've got about $2500 to spend, for now. I don't mind spending more on the camera and building up glass over time. The walk-around zoom range is critically important to start.
I had:
Sony Alpha 700
Sony HVL-F42AM (worked wirelessly when off-camera)
Sony Carl Zeiss 16-80 (this was my walk-around go-to lens - fabulously sharp!)
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (this was my indoor, low-light lens. It was a little soft but pretty useful)
Sony 100-300G SSM (A nice quality zoom, pretty light, and quick focusing. I had the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 before this but prefer the lighter weight to speed at this range lens)
In the past I had a nifty fifty (30mm was a better range with crop-sensor), a 28-70G (not wide enough for a walkaround lens), and several other lenses that just didn't work out for me. The only things I wanted to add to my existing kit were the Sigma 10-20 (or comparable wide) and the Tamron 90 (macro).
I'm leaving Sony and moving to Canon or Nikon. There is one and only one reason for this move: better images at higher ISO. On the A700 anything above ISO800 is useless and ISO800 itself is pretty bad. I went through tons of high end glass looking for something that would fix the problem but it was to no avail. The camera just does a poor job at higher ISOs. I'm looking to replace my existing lens lineup because I really, really liked it. The most pressing question is, of course, what system, and what camera?
I take pictures at home, indoors, of my kid - and I'm competent using bounce-flash (really liked the wireless bounce I had with Sony). I also take pictures several times a year of a large group of men and boys at civil war battlefields. This requires some zoom. I'm open to any and all suggestions. I should mention that I've got little to no interest in video. I've got about $2500 to spend, for now. I don't mind spending more on the camera and building up glass over time. The walk-around zoom range is critically important to start.
I had:
Sony Alpha 700
Sony HVL-F42AM (worked wirelessly when off-camera)
Sony Carl Zeiss 16-80 (this was my walk-around go-to lens - fabulously sharp!)
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (this was my indoor, low-light lens. It was a little soft but pretty useful)
Sony 100-300G SSM (A nice quality zoom, pretty light, and quick focusing. I had the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 before this but prefer the lighter weight to speed at this range lens)
In the past I had a nifty fifty (30mm was a better range with crop-sensor), a 28-70G (not wide enough for a walkaround lens), and several other lenses that just didn't work out for me. The only things I wanted to add to my existing kit were the Sigma 10-20 (or comparable wide) and the Tamron 90 (macro).
0
Comments
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
The Canon 50D does a pretty nice ISO 1600, and ISO 3200 will do for smaller prints. You can pick one up now for just over $900USD. I would suggest a standard zoom like the Tamron 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II. You can get the 50D in a kit with a Canon EF-S 17-85mm, f4-5.6 USM but I honestly recommend the Tamron 17-50mm instead.
For the telezoom I would suggest the Canon EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM. You can add the Canon 1.4x teleconverter and it will still beat a 70-300mm, f4-5.6 from anybody.
(You could also look at the Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8 DG Macro HSM II, which gets you a potential extra stop, but do purchase from a reputable dealer with return and exchange privileges just in case.)
This will put you a little over budget with just the body and 2 lenses, but you'll have really serious glass and a very good basic system.
You'll also need to add a competent external flash and I do recommend the Sigma EF 530 DG Super with Canon compatible E-TTL II circuitry. The power is enough for most any use and the feature set is similar to Canon's best, at about half the cost.
In Nikon the obvious choice would be a D300 or the new D300S. You can find a D300 at around $1200 refurbished. The D300S should be around $1400 is refurbished or new for another couple hundred dollars.
I still recommend the Tamron 17-50mm as above but obviously in Nikon mount.
Since the body will cost more you are more likely to consider the Sigma 70-200mm for the long zoom. Also look at the Sigma 1.4x teleconverter if you go this route.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Ziggy - I did have the Tamron 17-50 and loved it's sharpness but 50mm wasn't quite enough on the zoom end for it to be my walk-around lens and 17 wasn't near enough for it to be my wide lens.
Unfortunately there is no other lens like the Zeiss 16-80mm, f3.5-4.5 DT ZA for either Nikon or Canon mount, that I know of. You did mention that you were willing to be "... building up glass over time." I suggest that one of the super-wide zooms would make a good purchase after the standard and tele-zoom ranges are covered, but probably won't fit your current budget unless you make concessions elsewhere.
Is the Zeiss 16mm really that much wider than the Tamron 17mm? (This is a serious question as some manufacturers don't accurately quote focal lengths for their lenses.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Which end are you at more often (wide or telephoto) I love the 28-75 Tamron, it's AF is not the fastest but it is amazingly sharp.
For the Nikon system I shoot with a Fuji S5 (D200 body) and D700 and love the ergonomics/layout.
I'm equally spread across the range, but I need the wide more than the zoom. That's why the sony 16-80 was perfect for me. I'd gladly sacrifice f-stops for sharpness and range, especially with a camera that can handle higher ISOs. For a zoom lens, I don't really need more than 200mm on a crop camera.
Ziggy - several reviews I've read suggest the 40D over the 50D at ISO 1600 and 3200. Any thoughts on that? I can find used 40Ds for ~$600.
It seems like I've narrowed it down to 3 cameras. Canon: 7D and 40D. Nikon D300. I know - very different. The D90 appeals to me because it takes SD instead of CF which would be nice, but not a reason to pick a camera.
Tomorrow, I'll do more research. We're snowed-in, so I've got the time.
Just to clarify, there is the Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm, f3-5-5.6G ED VR DX, which lacks the ultimately better overall edge performance of the Zeiss zoom, and it's also quite a bit smaller aperture at the long end, but in its own field it's not a bad lens at all.
The brand new Canon EF-S 15-85mm, f3.5-5.6 USM IS has the range you are looking for but early reviews seem to indicate it's not really improved much over the predecessor (Canon EF-S 17-85mm, f4-5.6 USM IS) and I honestly don't recommend either except for snapshots and in very good light when you can stop it down, making it very slow.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
That's good to know. If I go with a Nikon body I'd probably start there and see how it performed.
Sorry I missed your question from before about the 16 vs 17. There was a noticeable between the wide end of the two lenses for me. It wasn't a big difference, but I noticed. The larger problem was on the tele end. When I mentioned that the wide end was more important to me than the zoom, that was in reference to the 28-75. That's nowhere near wide enough and I'd take the 17-50 over that every time. Frankly, neither works for me. Though I'm content to change lenses when I go "out shooting," when I'm out with the family I want one lens on the camera. With Minolta that was the 24-105. With Sony it was the 16-80. The Tamron 17-50 (though I LOVED that lens) just could get close enough when we were walking around.
I still have my Canon 40D, just because I felt that it's a pretty good performer and the high ISO yield is about the same as the 50D up to an 8" x 10" print. I do think that the LCD is much better on the 50D and I considered it just for that feature. (The 40D LCD is just not sufficient in display resolution and I can't use the camera to judge image sharpness.) The 50D does have an edge in low ISO detail. I think that the AF speeds are pretty similar and neither will focus very well in poor light unless you have an external flash with a focus assist light (or the ST-E2 transmitter which also has a focus assist light).
I considered a Nikon D90 but I do believe that for your civil war purpose there are some activities where the D300 would be a better choice as a more responsive body. (Not that the D90 is all that bad, but better is better.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
being a Nikon shooter, I'd go the D300 route. It will give you more latitude in the ISO dept, and it's flash sync is right up there @ 320th of a second, the D300s is rated at 250th, and the D90 200th sec.
Nikon make a 16-85 VR lens with similar sharpness as your Zeiss~
Also the older 80-200 f/2.8 zoom, though heavy is superb in sharpness and price point.
High D lighting. This is a nice option. I used it early on to save several photos of mine that were darker than I wanted after the shot was gone. It is an in camera post-processing.
I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to purchase the camera I thought best suited my needs, including my next camera, no matter the branding...it is about fulfilling a need....which ref. back to my opening question.
And even though you do not need video, I'd also recommend getting the latest technology you can afford. Of course, you're probably researching that through this thread, n'es pas?
Cheers,
from nikon POV my reccomendation would be d90 body, sb900, and 17-55mm to start with for about $2300. Or a used d300.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
None taken! While I can use bounce flash effectively, I don't always like to. Especially when we're at home and I'm taking pictures of our son in our house. We have tons of natural light and vaulted ceilings - if I could shoot ISO 800 with confidence flash wouldn't even be an issue a lot of the time. As I look my lightroom catalog I see a lot of shots taken at ISO 800. I shoot RAW and LR's noise removal on A700 noise isn't good. That much noise shouldn't be there anyway.
Qarik - thanks for the info on the flashes. That is a feature I would like to have because I got great use out of it with Sony.
It seems that I can find (these are used, body-only, in good shape):
Canon 7D: $1500
Canon 40D: $600
Nikon D300: $1100
Nikon D90: $??
I'm a member of POTN and can buy/sell there. Unfortunately, Nikon Cafe wants me to be a member for 6 months (and have 300 posts) before I can even see the sale ads there.
Thanks for thinking to ask. In my experience the various programs (noiseware, noise ninja) do not handle Sony noise as well as they do others. Also, again, why am I running noise-removal software at ISO 800? I'm happy to use it on ISO 3200, and even ISO 1600 if necessary. But I want my ISO 800 images to be silky smooth.
For example, I can get a used Canon 1d-markii for about $1000 - but my guess is that it's lacking features (quality of lcd, etc.) that would make it a poor choice. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
A couple of minor corrections.
The Canon 1D MKII is a great camera, but it is not FF. The 1Ds and 5D cameras are FF. The 1D series cameras are crop 1.3x, a Canon-only frame size. They do require the use of FF "EF" series lenses and the EF-S lenses specific to the Canon crop 1.6x format will not fit (without alteration.) Many third party crop format lenses do fit but will not cover the sensor without vignetting.
Yes, the LCD is small but the quality is actually good enough to confirm prime focus, so not that much of a problem. The user interface is completely unique and takes some getting used to, but once you do get used to it, it is very safe and quick to do the most common things.
I have 2 of the 1D MKII and they do a wonderful job in terms of focus acquisition in low light. They are very nice to ISO 1600, but at ISO 3200 they start to visibly lose DR and tonal gradations. RAW performance has actually improved somewhat with the newer RAW algorithms, but this is 2004 technology and there is better stuff out there. I do still use my 1D MKII cameras very regularly however.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
It really seems like the Canon 7D or Nikon D300 is the right answer. I'm okay spending most of my budget on a body if I can also get 1 great lens. I can add other glass later. Now I need to figure out what that one great lens would be. First I'll research the suggestions in this thread but if you have any other ideas of what I should look at I will.
Sharpness matters. I'll give up a stop or two of light if it'll save me a pound of weight. I really preferred the 16-80CZ over the 28-70G for just that reason, even though the G was 2.8 and super sharp.
For Nikon, Ken Rockwell recommends the Nikon 10-24mm, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 and the 55-200 VR. Thoughts? (About the lenses, not about Rockwell
Bjørn Rørslett seems to favor the 28 f/2 Nikkor and none of the medium range zooms for crop-sensor.
Photozone says "Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR DX is probably still the best DX standard zoom lens in Nikon mount to date."
I think if I went Nikon I'd be inclined to start with the 16-85, the 35mm f/1.8, and a good flash.
Now on to research Canon lenses.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'd be interested in seeing some of the noise you were speaking to. I went to your galleries but didn't see camera info turned on. Care to post some of them, please?
Also, not certain what you do with your images, but I will say I did a little High ISO test here at home a Month ago and was astounded in the difference between what I saw on my monitor (noise) and what the images looked like printed (very acceptable). Making the D300 spit out noise is not very hard and you do not have to be very high in the ISO realm. In fact all you have to do is under-expose a bit and you can get noise visible on a monitor...but I think prints is where we forget we are headed. Maybe thats changed. Maybe we are no longer headed to prints, just digital file sharing and observing.
LR2 seems to work better on noise sometimes than others. Noiseware Pro is my current noise reduction software and I find myself running it anytime I just cannot seem to get things quite smooth enough, high ISO or no.
D300 high points:
ISO: look here and be the judge. You can right click save and print these to compare. 6 images comparing 800/3200/6400 w/wo Noise reduction.
CLS: The Creative Lighting System. CLS system is so very easy to use and so very useful to many of us.
High-D lighting. A great way to lighten an image in cam. You can leave this on to aid you in dynamic range.
Flash Sync Speed to 320th: doesn't seem like a big deal until you use/need it.
AWB: I find very few times that Auto White Balance won't find the right WB. Though I shoot RAW, so tweaking is easy and expected.
Nikon has the 16-85VR~
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Canon 70-200 f/4
Either the 24mm f/1.4 or the 35mm
If the picture was bad, I didn't put it in my gallery.
Under-exposed pictures display much more and much worse noise. But when I had to limit the ISO on my A700 to 800, and sometimes even 400, of course I was under-exposing some pictures.
I also agree that the noise is far less noticeable in print than on the screen. I do a fair amount of printing around here - but we have a few digital photo frames, my wife is always looking at the galleries on her computer, as are both sets of grandparents. I think you're right that we're entering in a time where the print quality is less important than the (screen) display quality.
Thanks for these. I also shoot RAW and, at least with Sony, that rendered the in-camera dynamic range optimization useless. I am curious to hear more about the CLS. I don't know anything about that yet.
This is starting to haunt me. I went to the DPReview coverage of the Sony a700 and specifically relating to high ISO noise they say, "Sony are applying a combination of NR with the emphasis on luminance reduction (hence the slightly soft pastel-like images at ISO 3200), Nikon have gone (as they always do) for primarily chroma noise reduction which produces more detailed images with a more natural film-like grain. The other two appear to have struck a balance between these two. Overall the Nikon D300, Canon EOS 40D and Olympus E-3 all produce equally as good images (if with different 'looks'), the A700 images look a bit over processed."
Regarding RAW images they say, "Using a RAW conversion workflow there really is almost no difference between the DSLR-A700 and the Nikon D300, not hugely surprising as we suspect they share the same sensor (or at least very similar)."
If anything, the Sony a700 should be a little "mushy" with too much in-camera NR at default settings shooting JPGs and they say that RAW files should be nearly identical to Nikon D300 RAW files.
Looking at a comparison between the Sony a700 and Nikon D300 they seem not all that different:
http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/d300a700a1007d_test
The Sony and Nikon sensors do bear some remarkable similarities:
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/08/nikon-d300-and-sony-a700-sensor-similarity/
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Also, check to see if he is running firmware revision 4. My a700 is noiseless at iso 800, and is just starting to show noise in under exposed shadows at iso 1600. Under exposing and trying to bring back an image in post is a good way to get noise no matter what platform you are on.
Wayne
Funny you mention this - I spent a good part of the day reading that. I should have specified from the beginning that it isn't the noise that's so darn frustrating, it's the aggressive/terrible/detail-losing/artifact-leaving noise removal that's so bad. I do have firmware version 4 but I'm not sure I ever turned noise reduction off for RAW files. Maybe that, exposing properly (with no fear of using ISO 800 or 1600), and using noise reduction software other than LR when necessary, will make all the difference.
Wayne's comments, and the dpreview comparison, are encouraging to me about the A700. It seems that shooting RAW I ought to be able to get exactly the same performance out of this camera as I would with a D300.
I've already sold the Sigma 30, but I can replace it. I've sold the 70-300 but I can replace that too (and might try a different lens anyway). I've got the A700 on e-bay with the CZ16-80 but I can pull them off. In fact, I think I will. I do think (subjectively) I would like the D300 a bit better but there simply isn't a lens to compare with this CZ16-80.
I'll give it a go and report back. Thanks to everyone for their help - especially Ziggy who is always a valuable resource.
The Sony buy out made me do the move...as you know I was a KM shooter and loved my 7D's.........now shooting Nikon D300 (2 of them)..........LOve them.....will want to go back to FF in the future (back to refers to the fact that I have never truly gotten used to a crop sensor after shooting so many film frames that I could crop in camera with out a 2nd thought.....now I think and think and think bout how to crop for my photos)..............
Art,
What was it about the buyout that made you leave Sony/Minolta? Was it a technical limitation? Cost? Principle?