The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Terry has a Camera system dilemma

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Okay she is taking a trip to Iceland and she has a D700 and a 24-70 lens and maybe a another lens and was thinking of buying a 14-24 and 70-200. Than I said sell it and buy a Sony A900 16-35,24-70 Zeiss zooms and the 70-200 Sony zoom. This way she has a high resolution system on board this trip. The money after figuring it out is relatively the same.

Okay the challenge for today is figure this out for her trip. Nikon D700 Vs Sony A900 kit

Nikon glass 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 or
Sony/Zeiss glass 16-35,24-70 and 70-200

Body Nikon D700 vs Sony A900. Let's figure the max she will need ISO is 800

I say Sony what do you say.
 

mwalker

Subscriber Member
If it where me I would use the Sony with the CZ 24-70 and the G 70-300 thats it. Nice compact, relatively speaking, high rez kit. If you need wider than a 24, stitch a two or three frame pano. Of corse a M8 to tag along.
 

Dale Allyn

New member
I say keep the Nikon if you (Terry) shoot it comfortably. Have a great trip, take some enjoyable photos, come home, print the ones you like as large as you want. Is 16x24" large enough?

IOW, I'm thinking along the lines of Ranger 9's point.

If the goal is to make mostly 24x36" prints then I'm on-board with an "up-grade". If 16x24" prints are the likely goal I wonder if the change is needed.

Of course, if what appeals to a person is mostly resolution in an image and their photographic style is such that they seek out scenes that require it to "translate" the desired image, then one might go for the "up-grade".

Now, if one just wants the blessing of friends before getting into a cool Sony A900 kit, then I, for one, am here to support you! :D
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well I guess I look at this slightly different because being a Pro there are things money wise to consider to a certain degree and this still comes down to the hobbyist. First this is a maybe once in a lifetime trip and lot's of money to go and all that . Now for me I am thinking once in a lifetime images but also stock as well and also if you want to get past the Epson 3800 print size and really go big and sell prints. I guess I think more on the lines of going for the throat of the matter, if I am going through all this time and money than I want the biggest gun I can carry comfortable on board. Just never know what life throws at you or even better what the Art God's may open up a amazing image to you. Man I think I would choke myself if I had a once in a lifetime shot on a P&S. Okay that was exaggerating but you get my drift. Maybe I am a pig and just like to have the biggest gun in my hands, I like the no excuses mentality and have run into this with clients and my main reason to go MF. Now i would not hesitate a second to bring my MF gear but that is me. I think having a 22 mpx back or camera in this case is just really covering it. But of course that is my thinking
 

monza

Active member
Heck, having owned a D700, I'd say keep what you have. Res numbers aren't everything. :) Of course, I shoot with 50 year old lenses and film, so what do I know? All that gear would be way too big and heavy for me to cart around anyway. :)
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Of course, if what appeals to a person is mostly resolution in an image and their photographic style is such that they seek out scenes that require it to "translate" the desired image, then one might go for the "up-grade".
For that sort of person, a mere 24mp DSLR is unlikely to be enough. He (and I say "he" because it's almost always a he) will need the biggest, latest 65-megapixel medium-format back and a camera body to go with it... not to mention all the storage and post-production power required to use it, and the fortitude to dump it in a few months when an 80-whatever-megapixel back becomes available.

Then again, it might be more cost-effective to keep shooting with whatever's comfortable, and simply spend the extra cash hiring lackeys and syncophants to tell you how fabulous your pictures are...
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Just never know what life throws at you or even better what the Art God's may open up a amazing image to you. Man I think I would choke myself if I had a once in a lifetime shot on a P&S.
If you think that way, you'll find you always feel at risk for encountering some transcendantly wonderful image for which whatever equipment you have isn't "good" enough. You'll be hauling around a whole camera store and constantly worrying that you should have brought more.

Meanwhile, although the chances are slim, maybe a once-in-a-lifetime shot will happen -- and while you're distracted by managing all that gear, somebody else will pull out a P&S and capture it. (And if it really IS a "once-in-a-lifetime" shot, nobody will care what it was shot with.)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I have both set ups.

I'd say if the goal is sweeping scenics and general travel imagery the combination of 25 meg and Zeiss color and characteristics could make a difference. 16-35 and 70-200 are good choices ... you can probably get away with just those two since the files are so big you can crop a bit. Maybe add a 50/1.4 since it is pretty small.

If it is shooting more street stuff like you would in NYC, or in low ambient light ... the D700 would be my choice.

I don't agree that there is no difference. It's just whether you can take advantage of the differences. Given the choice where both will perform well, I would always choose a higher meg since it allows options like cropping, or is more resilient with modifications, and in general the tonal gradations and depth are a bit nicer as you take the image up larger.

Just my experience from using both. If it were my trip and I didn't want to lug a MFD kit, I'd select my Sony well ahead of my Nikon.
 

Dale Allyn

New member
Guy, I don't really disagree with you. I would take my MF gear without question. But that's also why I asked what the printing goal might be. And we also now know that Terry is not going for a few months so would have time to get to know her new kit.

Still, I find a lot of people obsessing over pixels when our photography would benefit more from polishing our compositions, vision of light, etc. Some of us are limited more by issues other than equipment.

I always think about my shot as being "the one" that I really need a perfect file for, because I would really HATE to get "that" shot and realize that it should have been on a bigger, better camera. I also find that harboring that sort of thinking can mess up one's (my) creativity.

So I kind of look at it as "if it's time for a new kit, get it". But I also feel that great images can be made with the kit one is most comfortable with. :)

(And if I were being honest, if not taking MF gear I'd likely go with a Canon 5D2 or better, but large prints are my goal.)
 
Last edited:

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I know I fall in the pig camp, no question about that. I like the D700 but for me I would just get as big and comfortable. I agree on ourselves and our creativity no question. Reason I said comfortable and i meant that in shooting as well as the physical aspects.

I just have this issue with getting burned again. As I did with a client , never said a word to me until I showed them the new MF system and what it could do and there comment was yea we noticed what your other one can't do. That went into my head and has never left my thoughts. It's not so much the MPX it is the quality coming out and from what I have seen that Sony has mojo. Maybe one reason I never complained about the P25+ even though only a 22mpx box the files screamed quality.
 

monza

Active member
If I were getting paid to lug around gear, I would seriously consider the Sony or whatever else. Not being paid, I wouldn't carry anything bigger/heavier than I'm willing to carry all day. :)
 

jonoslack

Active member
If it where me I would use the Sony with the CZ 24-70 and the G 70-300 thats it. Nice compact, relatively speaking, high rez kit. If you need wider than a 24, stitch a two or three frame pano. Of corse a M8 to tag along.
I'm with Mike on this one (but then, I'm always with Mike :sleep006::sleep006:)

Except that, for those extreme wide moments, a 12-24 sigma produces the drama without sacrificing too much on the IQ, and it's light and reasonably small as well.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
If I were getting paid to lug around gear, I would seriously consider the Sony or whatever else. Not being paid, I wouldn't carry anything bigger/heavier than I'm willing to carry all day. :)
Not so sure there is a big weight/size difference here but a very good point
 

Dale Allyn

New member
Guy, your points are valid. How do they compare to Terry's thinking? You adapt to new gear very quickly, some folks struggle with the change and experience a ramping up time.

I think of Iceland as a "landscape destination" and therefore larger prints. And I agree that, from what I have seen, the A900 + Zeiss (and better Sony) glass produces better files for most landscape scenarios than the D700. I'm just a bit conservative about flipping gear I guess. I've seen people show up with new gear and fumble with it, and I'd hate for Terry (or anyone) to experience that on a special trip.

Still, I think Terry should consider how important printing large is to her, and how large is "large enough". :)
 

jonoslack

Active member
Having read everyone else's posts (always a good idea before you wade in). I'll refine my reason for the Sony.

Of course, the extra resolution and the Zeiss glass is not to be ignored, but in general terms, when I swapped my D700 for the Sony, it was like having a great weight lifted off my shoulders . .. not because of the weight (not much in it although the sony body is lighter) However:

1. for landscape I think the Sony colour 'out of the box' is in a different world
2. the camera menus are comprehensible, rememberable and good to use.
3. if you don't want high ISO, and you're shooting in high contrast light, then the Sony highlight characteristics are wonderful.
4. The lenses Mike suggested (24-70 and 70-300) both focus rather close (no need for a macro backup)

This is not meant to be a dig at the D700, it's better in lots of ways than the A900, but on a 'once in a lifetime' trip to Iceland it doesn't have so many advantages (IMVHO of course)
 

monza

Active member
Not so sure there is a big weight/size difference here but a very good point
There is with my gear. That's why I no longer have a D700...I'd be taking a Contax G2, 4 lenses, and Velvia for landscape shots. Light shouldn't be an issue, so no problem with slow film. And the resolution of a full frame 35mm transparency with professional scans will rival any of the pro DSLRs that are far heavier and bulkier.
 

cmb_

Subscriber & Workshop Member
M8 + a few lenses
Alpa 12 TC + Schneider 35XL, Schneider 47XL, + any back you prefer (film or digital)
DMR + 100 macro, 180/2.8, 280mm or 2x for the 180, + another 1 or 2 in your desired focal length

That should cover it.
 

woodyspedden

New member
I'm kind of with CMB on this one. Terry has an M8 and (unless she has sold them) some really good M lenses. So if 12Mpx (the D700) is good enough resolution I would bet so would 10+ Mpx of the M8 and you would not be lugging around any heavy gear. I know that Guy and I both shot the Leica/Porsche trip in Germany two summers ago with nothing but M8's and lenses and the files turned out great.

However if I was motivated to come back and print my files at 24x36 or larger then, no question, get the A900 and don't look back. Only downside is that now you have two systems (Sony + Nikon) and you will probably want to sell the Nikon. Then a year from now along comes the D700X and you may be buying those Nikon lenses back again.

Man it was nice when we bought once and shot many as in the days of film equipment.

Woody
 
Top