Selling stuff

[ptomsu]

There is no comparison between the Live View of my D800 (poor) and my D810 (good). I shoot on a tripod and I am a heavy Live View User so the D810 upgrade was worth while to me. The image quality of both cameras is equally outstanding.

Then you have a good sample of the D800, as my D800E was never really sharp, I think it was because the AF system was not really adjusted optimally. Anyway I see perfect IQ from my D810, which I never saw from my D800E.

 

[Jack]

All this talk about upgrading to a D810 just cost me 2400.00.

Thanks Jack and Jorgen : P.

So let us know if you regret it -- or not

 

[Lars]

My D810 impresses every time I use it - even in parallel with the newest Phase One at the Carmel Workshop in February (that's a whole other discussion).
I'm also in the process of trimming my gear - ok, with mixed success - reducing # of F-mount lenses and replacing with modern designs.
I'm pretty sure I will never go the MF route - cost outweighs benefits (if any?) by an order of magnitude.

So, contrary to Jorgen, I'm selling my D700 while keeping the D810 - and yes, I'm planning to get a 200-500 this year. 85/1.4G replaced 85/1.4D, and the Sigma 35/1.4 is, well, impressive. Keeping the 180/2.8D. Not sure about the 135/2 DC - I seldom use it. 300/4 AF stays, I think.

 

[danielmoore]

My D810 impresses every time I use it - even in parallel with the newest Phase One at the Carmel Workshop in February (that's a whole other discussion).
I'm also in the process of trimming my gear - ok, with mixed success - reducing # of F-mount lenses and replacing with modern designs.
I'm pretty sure I will never go the MF route - cost outweighs benefits (if any?) by an order of magnitude.

So, contrary to Jorgen, I'm selling my D700 while keeping the D810 - and yes, I'm planning to get a 200-500 this year. 85/1.4G replaced 85/1.4D, and the Sigma 35/1.4 is, well, impressive. Keeping the 180/2.8D. Not sure about the 135/2 DC - I seldom use it. 300/4 AF stays, I think.

It's a spellbinding tightrope act which we all walk, even if only vicariously.

Your choices do resonate with me.

 

[ptomsu]

My D810 impresses every time I use it - even in parallel with the newest Phase One at the Carmel Workshop in February (that's a whole other discussion).
I'm also in the process of trimming my gear - ok, with mixed success - reducing # of F-mount lenses and replacing with modern designs.
I'm pretty sure I will never go the MF route - cost outweighs benefits (if any?) by an order of magnitude.

So, contrary to Jorgen, I'm selling my D700 while keeping the D810 - and yes, I'm planning to get a 200-500 this year. 85/1.4G replaced 85/1.4D, and the Sigma 35/1.4 is, well, impressive. Keeping the 180/2.8D. Not sure about the 135/2 DC - I seldom use it. 300/4 AF stays, I think.

I am also staying more in Nikon ecosystem. Kind of growing out of m43 over time, but still hard to decide to sell, as it brought me lot of great results. But in the end it never can compete with FF.

Will see what G lenses I am adding but I guess I tend more towards the 80-400 VR2 for wildlife. The 1.4/84 is kind of high on my radar screen to, not sure about the Sigma though.

Plus looking forward to the D820 or whatever it will be called

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

One camera that I'm looking forward to with anticipation is the D500. If the low ISO quality approaches that of the D810, I might buy one and postpone any new FX format camera, just keeping the D700 for portraits and industrial photography with WA lenses. That would in turn probably lead me straight into Sigma's arms, embracing their two f/1.8 (18-35 and 50-100mm) zooms for the DX format while still using older Nikkors (80-200 AF-S, 180 AF and 300 AF) for longer focal lengths.

If I buy the D500, m4/3 goes out, since the new Nikon is very suitable for video. I must also admit that I struggle with the ergonomics of the E-M1. The GH3 (and GH4) are much closer to what I'm used to from Nikon. A last point is the EVF. I know there are newer, better varieties available than that of the E-M1, but it's so far from competing with an OVF that there isn't really any competition. This surprised me quite a bit, since I've been living with mirrorless cameras for 5 years.

In any case, nothing is happening overnight. No new camera body for at least 6 months :angel:
I might buy a lens or two though

 

[ptomsu]

One camera that I'm looking forward to with anticipation is the D500. If the low ISO quality approaches that of the D810, I might buy one and postpone any new FX format camera, just keeping the D700 for portraits and industrial photography with WA lenses. That would in turn probably lead me straight into Sigma's arms, embracing their two f/1.8 (18-35 and 50-100mm) zooms for the DX format while still using older Nikkors (80-200 AF-S, 180 AF and 300 AF) for longer focal lengths.

If I buy the D500, m4/3 goes out, since the new Nikon is very suitable for video. I must also admit that I struggle with the ergonomics of the E-M1. The GH3 (and GH4) are much closer to what I'm used to from Nikon. A last point is the EVF. I know there are newer, better varieties available than that of the E-M1, but it's so far from competing with an OVF that there isn't really any competition. This surprised me quite a bit, since I've been living with mirrorless cameras for 5 years.

In any case, nothing is happening overnight. No new camera body for at least 6 months :angel:
I might buy a lens or two though

Your thoughts WRT D500 are pretty close to mine as well, although I did not think of the Sigma zooms, but they seem to be a hell of glass!

WRT IQ of m43 compared to Nikon APSC, especially from the D500, I am almost 100% sure that the D500 dances circles around the EM1 as well as their newer offerings like the PenF and very likely also the upcoming EM1m2. WRT menu systems and operation I got meanwhile up to speed with the EM1 and can operate it fast and reliable in almost any situation.

And yes, good OVFs as we know from D810 or D700 are classes better than the EVF of the EM1. Even classes better than the Fuji XT2 EVF, as also this one is plagued by some delay and responsiveness, as soon as light levels go down.

If I sell my m43 gear I would probably buy the 80-400 for wildlife and the D500, as this combination would cover all (more) I could cover with the EM1/EM1m2 and all my Oly glass.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

On the other hand, the two Sigma zooms become 13-25 mm and 36-71 mm f/1.25 (?) lenses with a Speed Booster on the E-M1. Maybe worth a try

Even with an ordinary Nikon G to m4/3 adapter, it would be an interesting experiment, since none of those lenses include image stabilisation, while the E-M1 obviously has IBIS.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Here's another thought, and seriously, it's an interesting one:
The D5500 is Nikon's hidden gem. It has a great 24 MP sensor, features a "flat" colour profile for video as well as stills, a fold-out touch screen, HDMI video output (8 bit 4-2-2), 1080 60p, a decent grip, shoots 5 fps (only 6 RAW frames though) and weighs around half of what the D500 weighs, at 420 grams including battery. Max shutter speed is only 1/4,000s and the viewfinder is tiny, so one is basically limited to AF, but I've looked at a couple of RAW files and they are surprisingly close to those of the D810 in quality and flexibility.

Reviews are here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d5500

and more importantly here:
http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/12/21/review-the-nikon-d5500/

I played a bit with numbers to see what a complete D5500 set with 2 bodies and all lenses I would need for my "normal" travel photography would cost, and came up with a total of $4,700. That might sound like a lot for a plastic amateur camera, but look at the list:

Nikon D5500 x 2
Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 (12-24mm eqv.)
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 (27-53mm eqv.)
Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 (75-150mm eqv.)
Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC (68mm eqv.)

All these lenses are of extremely high quality, and totally sharp from wide open (the 50-100mm hasn't been reviewed yet though). When I look at what I would need to pay to get similar image quality from an FX format camera, this is certainly food for thought. Obviously, one or both of the bodies can be upgraded to D7200 or D500 with increased functionality, no reduction in image quality but increased weight, size and price.

The package with 2 bodies weighs in at around 4.7 kilograms. It's impossible to find an identical package for FX, since none of the zooms have equivalents for the larger format, but it's an interesting setup all the same. A D810 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 costs $4,900. Add a second body and three more lenses and then... would anybody see a difference in image quality? Functionality yes, but image quality would be a hard nut to crack.

Just wasting some time in the morning

 

[Lars]

Darn. Now you have me thinking about getting a DX body.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Darn. Now you have me thinking about getting a DX body.

:ROTFL: :ROTFL: :ROTFL:

What I will probably do is testing out one or more of the Sigma zooms on my existing DX bodies (D300 and D2Xs). No single component of the ones pictured above, except the 50-100mm, costs more than $1,000, so trying them out individually won't break the bank. The Tamron lens is a full frame lens anyway.

 

[Lars]

What I will probably do is testing out one or more of the Sigma zooms on my existing DX bodies (D300 and D2Xs). No single component of the ones pictured above, except the 50-100mm, costs more than $1,000, so trying them out individually won't break the bank. The Tamron lens is a full frame lens anyway.

Makes sense except the D5500 has even higher pixel density. OTOH you can get it in red - who wouldn't want a RED camera?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Makes sense except the D5500 has even higher pixel density. OTOH you can get it in red - who wouldn't want a RED camera?

The lenses' ability to handle resolution, I can read about in reviews. What I want to see is how they render, OOF, transitions, colour, CA etc.

Red cameras are great, and that isn't any old red. Should work perfectly for those "No professional camera gear allowed" events

 

[Lars]

The lenses' ability to handle resolution, I can read about in reviews. What I want to see is how they render, OOF, transitions, colour, CA etc.

Red cameras are great, and that isn't any old red. Should work perfectly for those "No professional camera gear allowed" events

I read Ming's review again. D5500 seems like a great way to get past the image limits of your older DX Nikons. Of course it will be no match for a D500, but at a fifth/fourth of the cost that's not to be expected.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I read Ming's review again. D5500 seems like a great way to get past the image limits of your older DX Nikons. Of course it will be no match for a D500, but at a fifth/fourth of the cost that's not to be expected.

Exactly my thoughts, and for sports and action, the D300 and D2Xs still work fine. Then I have the D700 for portraits etc.

 

[ptomsu]

Only issue I am getting is with that Sigma 50-100, this renders a small body and compact DX camera again to a pretty large and heavy combo, much the same as an Olympus EM1 with battery grip and attached 2.8/40-150.

This soon comes all into a range where I prefer then a larger sensor and less fast lenses and less zoom range. I think in the end FF is still the sweet spot for a lot of I want to do and maybe with a D500 added to a 80-400 this gives unprecedented possibilities.

Will have a demo of the D500 tomorrow at my dealer which I am looking forward with high interest.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Only issue I am getting is with that Sigma 50-100, this renders a small body and compact DX camera again to a pretty large and heavy combo, much the same as an Olympus EM1 with battery grip and attached 2.8/40-150.

This soon comes all into a range where I prefer then a larger sensor and less fast lenses and less zoom range. I think in the end FF is still the sweet spot for a lot of I want to do and maybe with a D500 added to a 80-400 this gives unprecedented possibilities.

Will have a demo of the D500 tomorrow at my dealer which I am looking forward with high interest.

Big lenses are big lenses whatever camera they sit on. I agree that the 50-100mm is large, but it's actually a few centimetres shorter than the 70-200 f/2.8 and much cheaper. The reasons why I'm looking into this are mostly economics, but also curiosity. I had a look at the dpr studio scene and compared the D5500 with the D750 (much better, but also more than twice the price), the A7 II (slightly better and almost twice the price) and the A6300 (much worse, and slightly more expensive). My conclusion so far is that the D5500 is absurdly cheap, even when very high quality glass is added. The full frame alternatives are nice, but the question is how many will see the difference. Add to that the much more expensive lenses, it's really a no go for a photographer on a budget.

 

[ptomsu]

Big lenses are big lenses whatever camera they sit on. I agree that the 50-100mm is large, but it's actually a few centimetres shorter than the 70-200 f/2.8 and much cheaper. The reasons why I'm looking into this are mostly economics, but also curiosity. I had a look at the dpr studio scene and compared the D5500 with the D750 (much better, but also more than twice the price), the A7 II (slightly better and almost twice the price) and the A6300 (much worse, and slightly more expensive). My conclusion so far is that the D5500 is absurdly cheap, even when very high quality glass is added. The full frame alternatives are nice, but the question is how many will see the difference. Add to that the much more expensive lenses, it's really a no go for a photographer on a budget.

I hear you Jorgen and quite often I find myself being in a similar boat

The D5500 is for sure a great camera for the money. But I would be careful with APSC lenses and while I am sure the Sigma's are great, they will not bring much money when selling. And that point in time comes often sooner than later, as we both know.

I found the "kit lens" for the D500 quite interesting - the DX 2.8-4/16-50, although a bit more expensive, but seems to be rather Nikon pro quality and offers VR. The Sigma 50-100 is definitely to large for my taste.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

But the real fact is that what I already have actually works very well, even the ultra-boring but rather sharp Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. If I really buy a D5500, the most immediate need would be a WA zoom for DX, the Sigma mentioned above or the Tokina. The whole point of this exercise was to save money, so "investing" a couple of thousand in new lenses may not be the smartest idea :ROTFL:

Back to mother earth, boring but safe :ROTFL:

 

[Godfrey]

But the real fact is that what I already have actually works very well, even the ultra-boring but rather sharp Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. If I really buy a D5500, the most immediate need would be a WA zoom for DX, the Sigma mentioned above or the Tokina. The whole point of this exercise was to save money, so "investing" a couple of thousand in new lenses may not be the smartest idea :ROTFL:

Back to mother earth, boring but safe :ROTFL:

I was beginning to wonder ... :toocool:

Now that I have the SL and a fully-stuffed kit of Leica R lenses to use with it, I am not really planning to buy anything much and just need to get on with selling off the copious excess that I'm not using much. The SL may well end up saving me a bundle over time.

G