Nikon D700, time to switch camp

[ExplorerZ]

I do hope they can get clean ISO6400 from aps-c or 4/3 sensors. I really don't relish the thought of carrying those huge full frame lens on my trips.

For my needs, the low light situations happens indoors (homes, restaurants, pubs), so I don't need huge telephotos, medium range ie. 50 -100mm is good enough for me. If the full frame sensors gives clean ISO6400 images, heck, I don't even need F2 zoom lens, F3 or even F4 would be a good compromise against weight and cost.

As for the 35-100 F2, don't drool yet, check out this site:
http://www.e-fotografija.si/templates/default.aspx?a=1071&z=93

it is a monster and it's weight will make your arms tremble, negating the F2 aperture advantage. Wide open, it is very soft, compared to F8. Most lenses do not perform their best wide open, so I try to use the sweet spot, somewhere in the middle and gives me good sharp focus everytime, even if I fudge the focusing (bad eyes you know). Of course, if you want really shallow dof, that's another matter, and it comes at a price (ie. soft images)

very heavy? do take a look at the canon/nikon 70-200 f2.8 (equiv to 35-100 on a 4/3), they are just 200g lighter but both are f2.8. plus i have yet to include the additional weight of the lightest 35mm FF dSLR weight(in this case probably the 5d) over 4/3 dSLR.

and if a 4/3 can perform at iso1600, with a f2 lens it is almost equiv to a 35mm FF giving iso6400 shots with a f4 lens. do rmb, f2 is 2stop faster than f4.

anyway the choice is urs, if u do think 35mm FF advantage is really so huge, go ahead and upgrade

 

[diCam]

Nah, it's 7 Jul 1200H UTC, which makes it 7 Jul 2000H Singapore time - another 19 hours.

I'd propose that this thread be retained instead. Some of the posts were informative while others can serve as a lesson to readers, especially for aliens to 4/3 system and forum. It can be locked at the designated time but if there is a need to reopen this thread again for a healthy and civil discussion then so be it. What say you guys?

 

[spidey89]

I'd propose that this thread be retained instead. Some of the posts were informative while others can serve as a lesson to readers, especially for aliens to 4/3 system and forum. It can be locked at the designated time but if there is a need to reopen this thread again for a healthy and civil discussion then so be it. What say you guys?

I'd say fine by me,but I just hope that people do not take this thread as 4/3 users being prejudiced against others

 

[marky]

As for the 35-100 F2, don't drool yet, check out this site:
http://www.e-fotografija.si/templates/default.aspx?a=1071&z=93

it is a monster and it's weight will make your arms tremble, negating the F2 aperture advantage. Wide open, it is very soft, compared to F8. Most lenses do not perform their best wide open, so I try to use the sweet spot, somewhere in the middle and gives me good sharp focus everytime, even if I fudge the focusing (bad eyes you know). Of course, if you want really shallow dof, that's another matter, and it comes at a price (ie. soft images)

Actually have you ever tried the 35-100mm f2.0 lens before? If not, join us during the next gathering and i'll let u try it out.. You'll drool over this lens.. :bsmilie:

I've read the review but it seems the author is bias against olympus (personal feel, dun flame me on this)

 

[Mikefellh]

As for the 35-100 F2, don't drool yet, check out this site:
http://www.e-fotografija.si/templates/default.aspx?a=1071&z=93

Never go by a single review, or by reviewers who are typically biased against a certain brand. My favourite for Olympus reviews and information is:
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/index.html

I've tried the 35-100mm f/2 myself, and while I did love it I felt it was too much lens for the type of photography I do.

And if you want heavy, another lens I got to play with was the 3kg 90-250mm f/2.8...about twice the weight of the 35-100mm!

 

[halcy0n]

I luv the 35-100 too but as I expressed before, it objectively is bigger and heavier than an almost equivalent 70-200/2.8. It sometimes scares people at a wedding or party, especially when you attach the larger than life lens hood. ;p

As far sharpness, I would hardly say it is "very soft". It isn't as sharp as the 150 (or I suspect the 14-35) but for its general use for people shots, its sharp enough to pick out defects that women hate. Didn't marky get complaints about it being too sharp? :bsmilie:

I would love a full frame myself and was that close to pawning my system for a D3 system. Costs aside, my considerations were as follows:

1. D3 and 5D don't have sensor cleaning systems (I couldn't imagine swabbing a sensor clean).
2. Full frame has a wide angle advantage (Not too sure if I am an ultra wide junkie).
3. I will miss my telephoto range on a four-thirds system (although you could shoot at DX mode).
4. Full frame has thin DOF, which I adore (but have sort of fed that addiction with a R-D1s and a Canon 50mm f1.2).
5. I like in-body IS and not having it will take some getting used to (although a higher ISO may be a solution to in-body IS).
6. At high iso, I prefer the noise rendered on a nikon sensor compared to a canon sensor.
7. I am intrigued by the Nikon AF fine tuning, sounds like a great idea.

So, amidst the half-heartedness, it was better to let sleeping dogs lie. I must admit, with the D700, it does swing a couple of considerations in favour of a Nikon full frame. It even has an external focus assist lamp which isn't a strobing flash light. :think:

 

[marky]

I luv the 35-100 too but as I expressed before, it objectively is bigger and heavier than an almost equivalent 70-200/2.8. It sometimes scares people at a wedding or party, especially when you attach the larger than life lens hood. ;p

As far sharpness, I would hardly say it is "very soft". It isn't as sharp as the 150 (or I suspect the 14-35) but for its general use for people shots, its sharp enough to pick out defects that women hate. Didn't marky get complaints about it being too sharp? :bsmilie:

No i didn't get any complains about it, I'm the one who is complaining that its too sharp.. :bsmilie:

 

[btfiend]

I think what the TS is trying to say is, with all the naysayers talking about 4/3's minute sensor being the format's "Achilles Heel", why don't Olympus produce a larger "FX" version adopting similar design philosophies eg. telecentric optical design, SSWF?

It is a genuine question that should elicit constructive suggestions and criticisms and should not be brushed off as brand bashing or flame baiting.

 

[Mikefellh]

I think what the TS is trying to say is, with all the naysayers talking about 4/3's minute sensor being the format's "Achilles Heel", why don't Olympus produce a larger "FX" version adopting similar design philosophies eg. telecentric optical design, SSWF?

It's been written before, Olympus can't produce a camera with a larger sensor due to the smaller image circle design that is part of the FourThirds format...Olympus would have to have two lines of lenses, and have the mess of Nikon and Canon have.

It's hard enough now for them getting lenses to market...the 9-18mm lens that still isn't coming out until the fall was first announced TWO YEARS AGO on the lens road map.

 

[ExplorerZ]

I think what the TS is trying to say is, with all the naysayers talking about 4/3's minute sensor being the format's "Achilles Heel", why don't Olympus produce a larger "FX" version adopting similar design philosophies eg. telecentric optical design, SSWF?

It is a genuine question that should elicit constructive suggestions and criticisms and should not be brushed off as brand bashing or flame baiting.

unless you talking about having a square sensor with the side being the same length as the longest side of the typical sensor. any larger, you will suffer vignette or there will be a need to redesign(expand the size of whole lens to increase image circle area) every lens made specifically for 4/3 format.

Keep in mind all the aps-c sensor are "crop" of a 35mm FF with similar mount and taking similar lens, but 4/3 is another format by itself.

 

[CYRN]

I think what the TS is trying to say is, with all the naysayers talking about 4/3's minute sensor being the format's "Achilles Heel", why don't Olympus produce a larger "FX" version adopting similar design philosophies eg. telecentric optical design, SSWF?

It is a genuine question that should elicit constructive suggestions and criticisms and should not be brushed off as brand bashing or flame baiting.

Very true. But dun mind me asking... what's oly or 4/3 target market?

4/3 format has it's advantages and it actually a complimentary format to 35mm. I don't think it was intended to compete head on, but there are overlapping segments that would like the best of both world. Then it's really a personal choice to choose the best suitable equipments... don't forget, shooting styles evolve too, so what's suitable today may not be suitable a few years down.

 

[Mikefellh]

Keep in mind all the aps-c sensor are "crop" of a 35mm FF with similar mount and taking similar lens, but 4/3 is another format by itself.

APS-C also have their own lenses in addition to using full-frame 135 format lenses...but then FourThirds can also use 135 format lenses.

It's only when you use a 135 format lens on a smaller frame camera (FourThirds or APS-C) is there a crop...otherwise each is their own full format.

 

[ExplorerZ]

APS-C also have their own lenses in addition to using full-frame 135 format lenses...but then FourThirds can also use 135 format lenses.

It's only when you use a 135 format lens on a smaller frame camera (FourThirds or APS-C) is there a crop...otherwise each is their own full format.

but are there any oly/zuiko(non-third parties) lens that are designed for 135 format? on the other hand, the aps-c is more like a sub-format of the 135 as they share the older lenses meant for 35mm and of cos the newer ones designed for aps-c specifically.

 

[Merciless_Knight]

I do hope they can get clean ISO6400 from aps-c or 4/3 sensors. I really don't relish the thought of carrying those huge full frame lens on my trips.

For my needs, the low light situations happens indoors (homes, restaurants, pubs), so I don't need huge telephotos, medium range ie. 50 -100mm is good enough for me. If the full frame sensors gives clean ISO6400 images, heck, I don't even need F2 zoom lens, F3 or even F4 would be a good compromise against weight and cost.

As for the 35-100 F2, don't drool yet, check out this site:
http://www.e-fotografija.si/templates/default.aspx?a=1071&z=93

it is a monster and it's weight will make your arms tremble, negating the F2 aperture advantage. Wide open, it is very soft, compared to F8. Most lenses do not perform their best wide open, so I try to use the sweet spot, somewhere in the middle and gives me good sharp focus everytime, even if I fudge the focusing (bad eyes you know). Of course, if you want really shallow dof, that's another matter, and it comes at a price (ie. soft images)

35-100mm F2 at the range from 35 to 100mm F2 weight 1700g.

which Nikon got one up to date AF Prime at F2 at the range of 200mm which weight 2900g. Click here to know more

2900 - 1700 = 1200 grams more :dunno:

If C & N make a Zoom Lens at 70~200mm F2 that will a very BIG LENS. :bigeyes:

 

[MichaelLee]

I think what the TS is trying to say is, with all the naysayers talking about 4/3's minute sensor being the format's "Achilles Heel", why don't Olympus produce a larger "FX" version adopting similar design philosophies eg. telecentric optical design, SSWF?

It is a genuine question that should elicit constructive suggestions and criticisms and should not be brushed off as brand bashing or flame baiting.

from reading this thread, there are so many here don;t fully understand 4/3 system and give very negative comment.

- noise issue
if a camera can't shot indoor at usesable ISO1600 considered NO good or a camera that one should dump/switch away, then my question is, what about those hasselblad, that cost most than SGD10,000, only comes with ISO100, 200, 400 ?

Is hasselblad an IDIOT camera ? can;t shot at high ISO ? do you mean the hasselblad owner are hanging on a dumb camera and should all of them switch to D700 ?



Why don't Olympus produce a larger "FX" version adopting similar design philosophies ??

One of the beauty of 4/3 system is that the lens mount is 2 times bigger than the sensor format. My question is why other brand who offers a large FX/full frame sensor, could not adopt lens diameter 2 times bigger than the sensor design philosophies ??

Can you imagine a lens 17-35mm that has to be lens diameter 2 times bigger than the FX/full frame sensor ? the diameter would be more than 100mm !!!!!



The fact is there are different system. Each system has their own merits and negative.

Focusing at system A negative and compared that to system B positive just does not make sense.

 

[MichaelLee]

If C & N make a Zoom Lens at 70~200mm F2 that will a very BIG LENS. :bigeyes:

u forget to point out that, 35-100mm lens mount is 2 times bigger than the sensor.

if C & N can make a Zoom Lens at 70~200mm F2 and also 2 times bigger than the sensor, hahah....can u also imagine the diameter more than 100mm !!!

 

[drakon09]

Since everyone is having constructive discourse, I'll just keep the thread alive.

Again I'd like to commend on the restraint and maturity showed; thanks all.

 

[headfonz]

Very true. But dun mind me asking... what's oly or 4/3 target market?

oly didn't have any legacy af lens system in the 135 format when digital came into mainstream photography. so they could start from scratch in terms of format choice to reach a balance between weight/size vs image quality.

it is an alternative for those who appreciate the benefits of such a system, not as a direct competitor to the 135 and/or its sub-formats.

while camera bodies can't really get much smaller than the e4xx form factor (i might be wrong), the real weight/size benefits is more obvious as a system.

example:
4 SG lenses 9-300mm (135 equiv: 18-600mm) total weight with e420 = 1685g
2 HG lenses 12-200 (135 equiv: 24-400mm) total weight with e3 = 2380g

add specialist lenses in the SHG if needed. there are also other possible configurations from the Panaleicas and the Sigmas.

although image quality can be subjective, scientific tests and reviews like those is slrgear do support the claims that the 4/3s lenses generally do pretty well against its 135 format counterparts. do note that the ZDs and the Leica Ds are 4/3s format lenses and do not benefit from any performance like how a 135 format lens may have on an APS-C sensor.

a smaller sensor will inherently have more noise compared to a larger one, but the promise of 4/3s was never about "noise free images". the promise of 4/3s is a 100% digital format with a balance between weight/size vs image quality.

for me, the promise is delivered, and delivered well. the 4/3s format appeals to users like me who appreciate that balance.

 

[Oly5050]

Ignorance is the greatest problem the way I see it....in this case about the 4/3 system. Thank you all so much for your constructive and educational contributions. Basically, I think that the 4/3 system and its rationale and concept is a little too sophisticated for many people to understand. Even I struggle to explain when people ask me why I choose Oly DSLR. So I usually now say something easy to explain or dun even bother to answer them.

For some reason this all digital format makes sense and appeals to me. In addition, if anyone has gone thru the 4/3 educational spiel will realize that the system was developed to achieve the maximum benefits for DSLR digital imaging after having identified the limitations of prior DSLR systems. If I am not wrong, some smart engineer or a team of engineers did think long and research hard about all these issues before they came up with the 4/3 format. That is good enough for me that someone did try to go to the more fundamental level to produce a DSLR standard. However, as mentioned, this 4/3 standard was probably too sophisticated for most people to understand truely. That or the marketing department has not been able to do a good job to transmit a good fundamental understanding of the system to the masses. I think it is the former cos although I have 2 4/3 cameras and have learnt much from this forum, yet I still dun fully know it. :bsmilie:

 

[btfiend]

It's been written before, Olympus can't produce a camera with a larger sensor due to the smaller image circle design that is part of the FourThirds format...Olympus would have to have two lines of lenses, and have the mess of Nikon and Canon have.

It's hard enough now for them getting lenses to market...the 9-18mm lens that still isn't coming out until the fall was first announced TWO YEARS AGO on the lens road map.

Its not a mess, its a new opportunity to enhance the company's bottomline by pushing out a new 'pro' format. They can take as long as they need to roll out bodies and lenses, just get it perfected before shipping out (hint: E-3!)

unless you talking about having a square sensor with the side being the same length as the longest side of the typical sensor. any larger, you will suffer vignette or there will be a need to redesign(expand the size of whole lens to increase image circle area) every lens made specifically for 4/3 format.

Actually I'm assuming a slightly larger sensor. Vignetting isn't as bad a problem as it was during the film days. Vignetting is easily corrected in post or in some cases auto corrected in-camera. Some photographers even add vignetting effects to shift attention toward the center subject of the photo.

from reading this thread, there are so many here don;t fully understand 4/3 system and give very negative comment.

- noise issue
if a camera can't shot indoor at usesable ISO1600 considered NO good or a camera that one should dump/switch away, then my question is, what about those hasselblad, that cost most than SGD10,000, only comes with ISO100, 200, 400 ?

Is hasselblad an IDIOT camera ? can;t shot at high ISO ? do you mean the hasselblad owner are hanging on a dumb camera and should all of them switch to D700 ?

Hasselblads are slow, clunky, have low ISO settings but they're designed as studio cameras much like "C" 1Ds series . I've not come across another guy shooting corporate events or sports with a Hassy although they're great for studio portrait and product shots. Its all about using the right tool for the right job, just like you mentioned.

One of the beauty of 4/3 system is that the lens mount is 2 times bigger than the sensor format. My question is why other brand who offers a large FX/full frame sensor, could not adopt lens diameter 2 times bigger than the sensor design philosophies ??

The existing lens mount already have plenty of headroom for a larger sensor and still maintain near optical telecentricity with an optimized lens design. There certainly is room to grow should Olympus have plans for a larger sensor in the future.