Sensor Size & Versatility

Started Apr 2, 2013 | Discussions
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,977Gear list
Like?
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to 69chevy, Apr 3, 2013

69chevy wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

I was using a 200mm f/2.8 in most of the shots I posted earlier. You'd need a 300mm lens on FF for that..

Which would have given a better results.

No contest there: Option A. Chances are, I wouldn't have been allowed inside the arena lugging a 300mm f/2.8 lens and a FF body, with a monopod/tripod without media credentials. And even if I were, I would have been an utter nuisance to people sitting behind me, having to lift the bulky set up to my eyes and blocking their view. And, that is also assuming I would be okay lugging around 300mm f/4 (compromising a stop to save on weight and cost), weighing 5 lb (300mm f/2.8 would be nearly 8 lb), compared to a shade under 3 lb.

Higher contrast, sharper images, with more isolation from the busy backgrounds. You know, the reason pro sports shooters carry around these huge primes.

The 200mm f/2.8 is a FF lens. However, on APS-C, the lens actually offers a shallower DoF than it would on FF. And most media photographers would be sitting on the side lines with wide angle to tele (really 200mm equivalent) for most part.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,613Gear list
Like?
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to Draek, Apr 3, 2013

Draek wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

But you're referring to a VERY small subset of image creation. I'm referring to image creation as a whole in a wide variety of situations and conditions. Medium format definitely beats FF in the small subset you're referring to but loses in virtually every other situation.

Small? you're kidding, right? landscape, portrait and product photography alone cover nearly everything in professional photography and a good part of amateur work as well.

Portrait photography? You're arguing that the majority of today's portrait photography would be improved had they been taken with a medium format camera? Living in the world of portrait photography I have to strongly disagree. Sure, some studio portraiture would but outside of that context, no way.

Taking out portrait photography leaves just landscapes and product photography, which is certainly NOT the majority (or even close) of professional work.

No, the only reason most people don't shoot digital MF is cost, weight and size. Mostly cost. Sounds familiar? it should, as it's the same argument against 35mm SLRs vs smaller format mirrorless.

Well, there's also the high ISO issue you mentioned, but as the ~70 years of 35mm dominance show, ISO400 is good enough for most purposes anyways, and a good APS-C is still quite respectable all the way up to 1600 anyways; it is ISO6400 and above which truly are the tiny subset of current photography.

Is that why 90% of forum traffic surrounding a new camera is about high ISO performance? High ISO use is NOT a tiny subset of modern digital photography.

Right, but candid grab shots can be created by both and FF will provide better results.

You really think a Nikon D800 with a 70-200/2.8 lens will be as unnoticeable as an Olympus E-PL5 with a 45/1.8 by someone you're wishing to photograph?

You can be a LOT farther away with that D800 to get the same shot, so yes, I do.

The argument concerning places with 'no professional cameras' policies is valid, but it, again, a small subset of all photography. It's been years since I encountered a place where I could bring my gear along with me.

It's been years since you attended a classical concert?

The last concert I went to a was able to bring my gear along without a problem.

well, it's been almost a decade since I wanted to shoot a bird with a 400mm lens at dusk; clearly this means it's inconsequential to the world at large and thus can be safely disregarded.

I'd bet that it hasn't been a decade since you needed ISO 800 though!

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
coudet
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,814
Like?
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to Draek, Apr 3, 2013

Draek wrote:

No, that'd be a medium format camera equipped with a handful of high-quality prime lenses, as results of upsampling are never as versatile as capturing a larger, more detailed image to begin with in terms of producing a final image.

Not quite.

Medium format cameras do one thing better - they have higher resolution. However, technology used for the medium format sensor is years behind what's used for FF (& smaller) sensors, this is why dynamic range is nothing to write home about, and noise is not good. Add that medium format cameras are several decades behind what is available in FF DSLR flavor, and that lens lineup is also lacking, and the result is the exact opposite of a versatile system.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pixelless
Contributing MemberPosts: 612
Like?
For me...
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 3, 2013

... an FF camera is the most versatile, since it can take better photos in the most diverse situations.

If people are happy with smaller sensor cameas, that´s fine, and I´m happy for them. I´m one of them as a matte of fact!

as the Nex goes.... I find them quite hard to hold and need to concentrate just not to drop them! I don´t find them particularly small with anything other than a pancake lens either.

Saying that someone can get the same PoV with a 200mm on a Nex as a FF with a 300mm doesn´t make much sense to me. You could use a 200mm on a FF body, crop to 300mm and still have a better image.

And those "BIF" shots... well I´m sorry, but if you told me they came from an Iphone I wouldn´t argue.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,977Gear list
Like?
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 3, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Right, and the camera type that's most able to take photo in the widest variety of conditions is a FF system. Hot, cold, wet, dry, bright light, low light, fast action, complete stillness, controlled lighting, natural lighting, indoors, outdoors, etc.

Not really. If that were true, FF owners wouldn't be looking into additional cameras.

By that logic, the owners of MILC cameras wouldn't be looking into additional cameras, either. Your argument works against you as much as it works for you.

Chances are, most are either one-camera buyers or people with DSLRs who also buy MILCs (I'm in the latter category). And having experienced, analyzed pros and cons, and observed developments since NEX-3 was launched in 2010, I can safely bet on being just fine with just NEX-6 as a do-it-all system. It won't be as pocketable as my little Panasonic P&S was (which found no use after I got the NEX-3 and gave it away). It won't match high end DSLRs in many aspects of photography. But, it can deliver a lot of everything, getting darn close to anything and everything practical.

Do they not? For that matter, if I had taken the typical FF DSLR to an NBA game with a fast 300mm, I would have been an utter nuisance to the people sitting behind me (if I were to be able to get away with carrying such system into the arena to begin with).

And of course, to deal with twice as much weight... hand held.

Who cares about extra weight?

I do. I also see others do it. The NBA arena would.

Seriously, what's this obsession with weight? Regardless, as I mentioned to another poster, you're talking about a specific subset of photographic conditions. By that standard I could talk about a few months ago where I was shooting wolves in Yellowstone and needed 1000mm+. (I shot with a 500mm on a D800 and cropped by 50% or more.) In that scenario your system is less versatile, right? But as I said, that's a very specific subset of shooting so making your entire case based on it would be foolhardy.

I would suggest that when you need such focal lengths, you might be better off using crop mode to have a greater optical reach.

Idealism and reality often differ.

Your posts do show that to be correct.

I'm glad you didn't miss it. I say what I believe in.

For that matter, do you think zoom lenses are more versatile than prime lenses?

Overall, yes, although a strong argument can be made for prime lenses being versatile as well. The most versatile solution is to come equipped with both.

For someone claiming a strong grasp of English language, you sure know how to make convoluted statements. So, let us look into this versatile solution where a prime lens is also a zoom lens.

It's not convoluted, it's very straight forward. I never said that a prime lens is also a zoom lens! I said that in general a zoom is more versatile. I also said that a prime lens has many characteristics that make it versatile as well. Two separate ideas. Perhaps your reading comprehension is the root problem of our disagreement?

You provided a glimmer of hope against convoluted argument. You answered my question (in bold) but feel the need to still defend against your own response. If a zoom lens is about versatility, you're basically agreeing with: Versatility being Jack of All Trades, Master of None.

Prime would be ideal, when zoom might be more versatile.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,977Gear list
Like?
Re: For me...
In reply to pixelless, Apr 3, 2013

pixelless wrote:

Saying that someone can get the same PoV with a 200mm on a Nex as a FF with a 300mm doesn´t make much sense to me. You could use a 200mm on a FF body, crop to 300mm and still have a better image.

And those "BIF" shots... well I´m sorry, but if you told me they came from an Iphone I wouldn´t argue.

And you'd be perfectly like those iPhone camera users who can't tell the difference.

BTW, on FoV issue, your argument would be more valid if it were about the advantage of FF: wider angles, than telephoto reach, where smaller sensors are more effective, even before cropping is considered.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,613Gear list
Like?
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 3, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

It won't match high end DSLRs in many aspects of photography. But, it can deliver a lot of everything, getting darn close to anything and everything practical.

Agreed, thanks for coming around. A MILC is a great solution for a lot of people, but it's not the most versatile as you admit above. It can't match high end (or many middle of the road dSLR's for that matter) and that makes it less versatile.

I would suggest that when you need such focal lengths, you might be better off using crop mode to have a greater optical reach.

Did you not catch the 'cropped to 50%' part?

For that matter, do you think zoom lenses are more versatile than prime lenses?

Overall, yes, although a strong argument can be made for prime lenses being versatile as well. The most versatile solution is to come equipped with both.

For someone claiming a strong grasp of English language, you sure know how to make convoluted statements. So, let us look into this versatile solution where a prime lens is also a zoom lens.

It's not convoluted, it's very straight forward. I never said that a prime lens is also a zoom lens! I said that in general a zoom is more versatile. I also said that a prime lens has many characteristics that make it versatile as well. Two separate ideas. Perhaps your reading comprehension is the root problem of our disagreement?

You provided a glimmer of hope against convoluted argument. You answered my question (in bold) but feel the need to still defend against your own response. If a zoom lens is about versatility, you're basically agreeing with: Versatility being Jack of All Trades, Master of None.

Ugh, here we go again. What are you trying to say?

Prime would be ideal, when zoom might be more versatile.

You clipped my original quote which added that the most versatile solution would be to carry both!

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
coudet
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,814
Like?
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 3, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

Portrait photography? You're arguing that the majority of today's portrait photography would be improved had they been taken with a medium format camera? Living in the world of portrait photography I have to strongly disagree. Sure, some studio portraiture would but outside of that context, no way.

Resolution would be improved, at least. It's a one trick pony.

The big problem here is that most of today's "medium format" cameras really aren't good old medium format that we knew from film era, they have small sensors. Add the lens lineup issue - EF-mount and F-mount systems crush all medium format systems when it comes to lenses. There are some mighty sweet lenses for FF, favorite among portrait shooters (among others), that have no medium format equivalents..

And we haven't even scratched the surface of the areas where FF DSLR are the default choice, where they are used daily in both professional and amateur capacity, the areas where medium format (or the smaller-sensor cameras) can't compete.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,977Gear list
Like?
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 3, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Well, just keep repeating that we should be comparing NEX with APS-C sensors to DSLRs with FF sensor, as they are comparable, and you will be doing your job.

My job is using the cameras, not discussing them. I'm typing now as a hobby, not a job.

Perhaps it is "English" that is getting in the way. Don't worry about your real job. We're discussing photography in a photography forum.

My real job is photography, seems relevant.

Figure out first whether you would like to discuss that as well. Personally, I'm not interested in it. Make your points as a contributor to a discussion forum on photography.

My point being that I'm not sitting and complaining.

Who is?

Those who sit and complain x and y can't be done with NEX, when someone actually demonstrates it otherwise.

Ah, I see. Fair enough.

Again, this is near incomprehensible. I'm comparing FF dSLR's to NEX and other MILC's. To me they are comparable. Do you disagree?

Disagree? I LOVE it that you must.

What in the world are you talking about?

Your fascination of avoiding APS-C (DSLR) to APS-C (NEX) comparison, that you can't make a point unless you must compare APS-C (NEX) to FF (DSLR). So, how come a NEX with APS-C sensor is more comparable to a FF DSLR? No need to explain it though, just keep repeating that argument.

I'm not avoiding that argument, I'm saying it's foolhardy. We're talking about what's most versatile, not whether an APS-C NEX is more versatile than an APS-C dSLR. That's the argument YOU keep repeating ad nauseum but isn't really relevant to the discussion of overall versatility.

Correct, we ARE talking about versatility. And if I haven't made it clear in nearly half dozen posts, let me try again: my pick would be a NEX-6 today, simply because it is capable of being the Jack of All Trades but master of none.

Sort of like a zoom lens, over a collection of primes. People pick the former for versatility, not for all-around excellence.

To repeat, I can if I were to carry just one camera today, for its versatility, Sony NEX-6 would be my pick. Not any comparable DSLR, not any DSLT. And forget m4/3 and lesser cameras.

But what does what YOU would choose have anything to do with the original question?

Versatility.

Right, but you're arguing against versatility so I'm confused. You're arguing for a camera system that's LESS versatile, not more.

Yes, you're confused. I'm telling that if I had to live with just one camera, I would pick NEX-6. It can be a small go to system, or I can go shoot sports with it. It is not a "specialty" camera.

In English, "you're" in your response (to me) would be directed towards me and "I'm" would be pointing at you. So, when you say "I'm confused" is about you.

Uh huh, your point? I'm confused in the sense that your argument doesn't make sense, not in sense that I'm confused about the topic at hand.

Let us see your sports/action shots with small cameras so we can discuss that too.

I don't shoot sports, dSLR or otherwise.

It only makes your previous argument meaningless.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,613Gear list
Like?
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 3, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Well, just keep repeating that we should be comparing NEX with APS-C sensors to DSLRs with FF sensor, as they are comparable, and you will be doing your job.

My job is using the cameras, not discussing them. I'm typing now as a hobby, not a job.

Perhaps it is "English" that is getting in the way. Don't worry about your real job. We're discussing photography in a photography forum.

My real job is photography, seems relevant.

Figure out first whether you would like to discuss that as well. Personally, I'm not interested in it. Make your points as a contributor to a discussion forum on photography.

So you don't believe it's relevant to talk about one's experience? So why then do you talk about your experience studying the development of the NEX system? A person's experience in something is an important way to evaluate the quality of information being provided.

I'm not avoiding that argument, I'm saying it's foolhardy. We're talking about what's most versatile, not whether an APS-C NEX is more versatile than an APS-C dSLR. That's the argument YOU keep repeating ad nauseum but isn't really relevant to the discussion of overall versatility.

Correct, we ARE talking about versatility. And if I haven't made it clear in nearly half dozen posts, let me try again: my pick would be a NEX-6 today, simply because it is capable of being the Jack of All Trades but master of none.

I understood that long ago. Just as my position seems like it should be clear too. I'd choose a D4 because it is capable of being an even better jack of all trades and master of a few as well!

I don't shoot sports, dSLR or otherwise.

It only makes your previous argument meaningless.

My previous argument about what, exactly?

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,977Gear list
Like?
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 3, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

It won't match high end DSLRs in many aspects of photography. But, it can deliver a lot of everything, getting darn close to anything and everything practical.

Agreed, thanks for coming around. A MILC is a great solution for a lot of people, but it's not the most versatile as you admit above. It can't match high end (or many middle of the road dSLR's for that matter) and that makes it less versatile.

Sorry to disappoint you, but you failed to understand. You agree that a zoom lens is picked for its versatility. You certainly don't pick zoom lenses because they are better than primes, in IQ and speed, do you? You pick them for their versatility.

There might be a few who would pick just one prime for their camera and live with it forever. But most would pick a zoom lens if only one lens were the option. Why? Versatility.

I would suggest that when you need such focal lengths, you might be better off using crop mode to have a greater optical reach.

Did you not catch the 'cropped to 50%' part?

You can do that with APS-C or smaller sensors too. But, I'm strictly speaking of optical reach (where your metering and composition are also affected).

For that matter, do you think zoom lenses are more versatile than prime lenses?

Overall, yes, although a strong argument can be made for prime lenses being versatile as well. The most versatile solution is to come equipped with both.

For someone claiming a strong grasp of English language, you sure know how to make convoluted statements. So, let us look into this versatile solution where a prime lens is also a zoom lens.

It's not convoluted, it's very straight forward. I never said that a prime lens is also a zoom lens! I said that in general a zoom is more versatile. I also said that a prime lens has many characteristics that make it versatile as well. Two separate ideas. Perhaps your reading comprehension is the root problem of our disagreement?

You provided a glimmer of hope against convoluted argument. You answered my question (in bold) but feel the need to still defend against your own response. If a zoom lens is about versatility, you're basically agreeing with: Versatility being Jack of All Trades, Master of None.

Ugh, here we go again. What are you trying to say?

Prime would be ideal, when zoom might be more versatile.

You clipped my original quote which added that the most versatile solution would be to carry both!

Your choice was: Pick one.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,977Gear list
Like?
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 3, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Well, just keep repeating that we should be comparing NEX with APS-C sensors to DSLRs with FF sensor, as they are comparable, and you will be doing your job.

My job is using the cameras, not discussing them. I'm typing now as a hobby, not a job.

Perhaps it is "English" that is getting in the way. Don't worry about your real job. We're discussing photography in a photography forum.

My real job is photography, seems relevant.

Figure out first whether you would like to discuss that as well. Personally, I'm not interested in it. Make your points as a contributor to a discussion forum on photography.

So you don't believe it's relevant to talk about one's experience? So why then do you talk about your experience studying the development of the NEX system? A person's experience in something is an important way to evaluate the quality of information being provided.

Your arguments should be a reflection of your experience. It is why I'd asked you to post action/sports shots for a specific condition earlier, since you were arguing about it. But you returned with an excuse that you don't do that, even with DSLR.

You also took offense to use of word "job" earlier and went on talking about "English", when it had nothing to do with your profession but simply contribution to a discussion forum.

I'm not avoiding that argument, I'm saying it's foolhardy. We're talking about what's most versatile, not whether an APS-C NEX is more versatile than an APS-C dSLR. That's the argument YOU keep repeating ad nauseum but isn't really relevant to the discussion of overall versatility.

Correct, we ARE talking about versatility. And if I haven't made it clear in nearly half dozen posts, let me try again: my pick would be a NEX-6 today, simply because it is capable of being the Jack of All Trades but master of none.

I understood that long ago. Just as my position seems like it should be clear too. I'd choose a D4 because it is capable of being an even better jack of all trades and master of a few as well!

I won't be surprised if you would. But then, since you may never take it to places I take my camera, it is logical to assume you may never encounter a variety of situations where it will be nothing but a nuisance.

I don't shoot sports, dSLR or otherwise.

It only makes your previous argument meaningless.

My previous argument about what, exactly?

About your inability to use NEX system for action/sports.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Erick L
Contributing MemberPosts: 625
Like?
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 3, 2013

Versatility is not a function of sensor size.

-- hide signature --

Erick - www.borealphoto.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
69chevy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,534
Like?
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 3, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Correct, we ARE talking about versatility. And if I haven't made it clear in nearly half dozen posts, let me try again: my pick would be a NEX-6 today, simply because it is capable of being the Jack of All Trades but master of none.

But it is not the jack of all trades. I think it is the master of some.

All trades would include: Sports, wildlife, action, portrait, landscape, snapshots, and weddings: all ranging from terrible, mixed source lighting, to well lit studio shots.

IMHO a full frame DSLR is better at 99% of these trades.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,613Gear list
Like?
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 3, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

It won't match high end DSLRs in many aspects of photography. But, it can deliver a lot of everything, getting darn close to anything and everything practical.

Agreed, thanks for coming around. A MILC is a great solution for a lot of people, but it's not the most versatile as you admit above. It can't match high end (or many middle of the road dSLR's for that matter) and that makes it less versatile.

Sorry to disappoint you, but you failed to understand. You agree that a zoom lens is picked for its versatility. You certainly don't pick zoom lenses because they are better than primes, in IQ and speed, do you? You pick them for their versatility.

True, although I also pick them because many are equipped with IS and/or SSM type technology that most primes are not.

There might be a few who would pick just one prime for their camera and live with it forever. But most would pick a zoom lens if only one lens were the option. Why? Versatility.

What's your point?

I would suggest that when you need such focal lengths, you might be better off using crop mode to have a greater optical reach.

Did you not catch the 'cropped to 50%' part?

You can do that with APS-C or smaller sensors too. But, I'm strictly speaking of optical reach (where your metering and composition are also affected).

Of course you can, but 50% of 16MP is only 8MP, whereas 50% of 36MP is 16MP. So...

You clipped my original quote which added that the most versatile solution would be to carry both!

Your choice was: Pick one.

That's not my choice at all lol. I don't have to pick one and have not. I own zoom lenses from 14mm through 200mm at f/2.8 and I own a variety of 1.4 primes. I do not have to choose just one.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,613Gear list
Like?
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 3, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

So you don't believe it's relevant to talk about one's experience? So why then do you talk about your experience studying the development of the NEX system? A person's experience in something is an important way to evaluate the quality of information being provided.

Your arguments should be a reflection of your experience. It is why I'd asked you to post action/sports shots for a specific condition earlier, since you were arguing about it.But you returned with an excuse that you don't do that, even with DSLR.

Could you quote where I was arguing about sports photography?

You also took offense to use of word "job"

I did? Could you quote that, too?

I'm not avoiding that argument, I'm saying it's foolhardy. We're talking about what's most versatile, not whether an APS-C NEX is more versatile than an APS-C dSLR. That's the argument YOU keep repeating ad nauseum but isn't really relevant to the discussion of overall versatility.

Correct, we ARE talking about versatility. And if I haven't made it clear in nearly half dozen posts, let me try again: my pick would be a NEX-6 today, simply because it is capable of being the Jack of All Trades but master of none.

I understood that long ago. Just as my position seems like it should be clear too. I'd choose a D4 because it is capable of being an even better jack of all trades and master of a few as well!

I won't be surprised if you would. But then, since you may never take it to places I take my camera, it is logical to assume you may never encounter a variety of situations where it will be nothing but a nuisance.

Possible, who knows? That doesn't change the fact that it's more versatile on the whole though.

About your inability to use NEX system for action/sports.

Where in this thread did I ever make such an argument?

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joejack951
Senior MemberPosts: 2,449Gear list
Like?
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 3, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

joejack951 wrote: Ok, so he didn't respond with exactly what you asked for but instead stated what he carries. A reasonable response but not much good for a direct comparison of versatility, weight, and size. However, the fact that his kit fits in a waist pack (versus say a large backpack) is still relevant to the discussion.

As I said then, lugging around 8+ lb of gear, even if held by just a string, isn't my idea of small, light and convenient. I offered to make a direct comparison.

Did you make a direct comparison? I didn't see it.

You aren't putting your NEX kit in your pocket either and most likely put it in a bag of some sort in lieu of always wearing a jacket with large pockets or some other workaround to avoid a bag.

But one can put a NEX-6 in a pocket. In fact, if I'm out shooting casually, I might not need a bag at all (that is the kind of gear list I provided). And correct, I'd be wearing cargo shorts/pants.

You'd look pretty funny to me with a NEX and four lenses shoved into your shorts. Just saying. I'd rather have my D3S and 24-120/4 slung over my shoulder.

Nikon D600, 18-35/3.5-4.5, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8 = 1886g / 4.1 lbs.

Nikon D600 (850g) versus Sony NEX-6 (345g) - Size Comparison Body only

Nikon D600 w/16-35mm f/4 VR versus Sony NEX-6 w/10-18mm f/4 OSS*

*used 18-55 OSS lens, but 10-18 is thicker and slightly heavier, but otherwise comparable.

Sony 10-18 offers a 15-28 FoV and the Nikon has 16-35, fairly comparable. Now combined weights:

Sony NEX-6 w/10-18 f/4: 570g (345g + 225g), 1.25lb

Nikon D600 w/16-35 f/4: 1530g (850g + 680g), 3.4 lb

Yes, tiny aperture lenses and unergonomic camera bodies are small and light. 2 lbs. extra won't break my back though. I'm not putting the D600 and either wide angle in a pocket but the NEX won't fit in any pocket on a piece of clothing I own either. Until Sony releases a 10-18/2.8 at a lower weight than an equivalent f/4 FF lens, I'll remain unimpressed.

 joejack951's gear list:joejack951's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW100 Nikon Coolpix P7700 Nikon D300S Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,977Gear list
Like?
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to joejack951, Apr 3, 2013

joejack951 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

joejack951 wrote: Ok, so he didn't respond with exactly what you asked for but instead stated what he carries. A reasonable response but not much good for a direct comparison of versatility, weight, and size. However, the fact that his kit fits in a waist pack (versus say a large backpack) is still relevant to the discussion.

As I said then, lugging around 8+ lb of gear, even if held by just a string, isn't my idea of small, light and convenient. I offered to make a direct comparison.

Did you make a direct comparison? I didn't see it.

No, because I presented my idea of small and light for a walk around (Hint: I don't lug around even my small and light 200mm f/2.8 which I use only for action/sports much less make an excuse for a lens twice as heavy and nearly twice as big).

However, I did open the floor for a direct comparison, quoting lenses for FoV and weights.

You aren't putting your NEX kit in your pocket either and most likely put it in a bag of some sort in lieu of always wearing a jacket with large pockets or some other workaround to avoid a bag.

But one can put a NEX-6 in a pocket. In fact, if I'm out shooting casually, I might not need a bag at all (that is the kind of gear list I provided). And correct, I'd be wearing cargo shorts/pants.

You'd look pretty funny to me with a NEX and four lenses shoved into your shorts. Just saying. I'd rather have my D3S and 24-120/4 slung over my shoulder.

Actually, one lens would be on the camera, three in a pocket each. I've done it. I wonder if you would even try. May be not... your practice is determined by perception of what you're doing.

Nikon D600, 18-35/3.5-4.5, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8 = 1886g / 4.1 lbs.

Nikon D600 (850g) versus Sony NEX-6 (345g) - Size Comparison Body only

Nikon D600 w/16-35mm f/4 VR versus Sony NEX-6 w/10-18mm f/4 OSS*

*used 18-55 OSS lens, but 10-18 is thicker and slightly heavier, but otherwise comparable.

Sony 10-18 offers a 15-28 FoV and the Nikon has 16-35, fairly comparable. Now combined weights:

Sony NEX-6 w/10-18 f/4: 570g (345g + 225g), 1.25lb

Nikon D600 w/16-35 f/4: 1530g (850g + 680g), 3.4 lb

Yes, tiny aperture lenses and unergonomic camera bodies are small and light.

I guess, for someone who would think lugging 8 lb of gear on a small waist belt as being inconsequential, I can imagine why ergonomics would be an issue.

2 lbs. extra won't break my back though. I'm not putting the D600 and either wide angle in a pocket but the NEX won't fit in any pocket on a piece of clothing I own either. Until Sony releases a 10-18/2.8 at a lower weight than an equivalent f/4 FF lens, I'll remain unimpressed.

Delivering fools gold shouldn't be anybody's priority. And no, an additional 2 lb won't break the back, for a bit longer, but if you that is your style, don't preach that shedding weight can't be done and hasn't been.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,613Gear list
Like?
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 3, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Delivering fools gold shouldn't be anybody's priority.

Agreed.

And no, an additional 2 lb won't break the back, for a bit longer, but if you that is your style, don't preach that shedding weight can't be done and hasn't been.

Of course it has! The process has just required many compromises which some people will find acceptable and some will not.

Also... have you found those quotes yet?

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jorginho
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,579Gear list
Like?
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 3, 2013

I have m43 cams (G1, GH2 and EPl5). To me, they are better balanced than the NEX6. Especially the lens choice and the lens size. Yes, sure...sporters jumping up and down in an arena and seagulls gliding by. Look at my gallery, they are there (sport not, not interested but it is all the same). NEX6 is pretty bad in AF tracking inspite of PDAF.  Panasonic Gh3 is better. But you won't catch me saying they xan do it all. Nikon D4 can do it all for instance.

There were pictures made of sports, birds in flight etc with Manual focussed camera's. But it would be quite a stretch to say the cam can do it just like any other cam. Mirrorless camera's are getting better and better, but currently they cannot do it all.

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads