Alfred Molon wrote:
Have you seen the review of the Zuiko 12-60? It got a Highly
recommended, so 5x quality zooms are technically possible.
Hi again Alfred,
yes the Zuiko 12-60 is indeed a fine lens, and Olympus has been doing well in making great digital lenses. Worth considering since dust, Live-View, and IQ are parameter for you. At lower Iso they have fine resolution.
Regarding Olympus, people have been stating that no matter what they did; they found it almost impossible to get dust on the sensor, due to the excellent and effective anti-dust system of Oly. (In the Oly forum they can give you more on this)
I can't imagine using a prime lens, i.e. carrying around a bag of
primes to choose from. Besides what is the point of having a prime
with stellar resolution and optical properties, when you lose the
shot while you are changing lenses?
I usually have an idea of what sort of photography I wanna do at a present location. I plan for my future travel light / mountaineering kit to comprise of the following pancake primes : 15 mm, 21 mm, 70 mm. The lenses weigh from 130-200 gram each, and are just a few centimetres long, so take up little room. For photography in dodgy places in bigger cities, a small prime on a DLSR, also normally attract less attention.
Few serious
landscape shooters would choose your 5x zoom for that type of job. To
my knowledge, your consumer zoom lens on the R1, does not even
feature Aspherical lens elements or ED glass, like e.g. the
Pentax/Tamron DA 18-250/3.5-6.3 AL ED [IF].
Well, the lens of the R1 is on the level of a good DSLR lens based on
what Phil writes in his review.
Now I’ve read the review of the Sony R1. I didn’t even know that such a camera existed, with a big sensor and fine zoom lens. It does well compared to the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS, but this is also a sub-stellar lens. The R1 also holds its own well compared to a Canon 50 mm and a Olympus 50 mm, still these comparisons are not at extreme settings, as the R1 is not particularly fast at 50 mm setting. (And there are no comparisons with Canon L glass zooms, nor against primes at the more extreme lengths, like 15 mm, 24 mm, or 85 mm).
To get the same kind of lens quality and approximate zoom range, a DSLR is bundled up with the Sigma 17 - 35 mm EX DG F2.8 - F4, and Sigma Sigma 24 - 70 mm EX DG F2.8.
The R1 was a sweet package those years ago, but I can understand why a DSLR would tempt now. I think I would feel a bit restricted with it, what if one wanted to go wider than 24 mm equivalent ? Or I came by a great macro scene ? Or needed further than 120 mm ? All options that could be applicable to architecture scenery, or landscape capture. This is where a DSLR has more creative options. I’m not even sure manual focus is possible with the R1.
But interesting that a VCL-DEH08R Wide Conversion Lens (0.8x), 390 g, can be purchased for it.
Do you have any test result to back up this assertion?
This is just the experience I've had, going from a megazoom to a high quality prime; I realized all the other virtues that are in lens characteristics, 3d effect, etc.
I showed some photography to various people, not telling that I was shooting with a new lens, and I was surprised how much better they found the rendering from the prime lens. The zoom had acceptable sharpness, but seems there are many more subjective elements to lenses that do not show up in set-up tests.
But indeed, based on reviews, the lens on the R1 impresses me.
I've been travelling like crazy over the past years...
Sounds great. Been some time since I came upon someone with such an extensive travelling track record. When I was in Canada, I met a couple where the guy had to consider getting a new passport, since all the pages in his old was filled with Visa stamps
I recently came by the book "Unforgettable places to see", by Steve Davey. Should you need more inspiration of places lacking, you could go by this one.
This is an assertion which you can't prove in any way.
As the lens of the R1 is sweet at the 24-120 mm equivalent, I think it could run into trouble at the increased resolution of the A350; and its full size APS-C sensor, (23.6 x 15.8 mm, vs. 21.5 x 14.4 mm sensor in the R1).
It all boils down to what you are going to do with your pictures.
Indeed, you made a wise choice. Getting the best camera for the price, really learning all about it, and then travelling around recording the different places. I usually do the error of going for too high-level gear that I can’t afford the journey :-/
You seem to do your homework, so no matter what you choose, I’m sure that you’ll land something to keep you happy.
The D2H with its 4MP of resolution would have performed very,
very poorly here.
This is where Pro's found the quality of pixels, in many cases better than their 10 MP D200. So the output from the D2H was preferable. High MP isn't everything. And A3 size is generally a normal size for a SLR to cope with.
I could easily imagine Sony putting a strong AA filter on their CCD chip on the A350, and a weaker one on the CMOS sensor of the A700. It would have a simple explanation; the A700 is built to higher standards; and is in the semi-pro segment. Advanced users put their equipment through more scrutiny.
And sony are known for not giving the users real RAW imagery; the output in their DSLR’s generally have Noise Reduction applied, so not a true digital negative.
The Pentax DA* 16-50/2.8 is designed in cooperation with Tokina. Sample variation has been an issue, but else here is a review of the Tokina in Nikon mount :
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/274-tokina-af-16-50mm-f28-at-x-pro-dx-nikon-lens-test-report--review
Good points in the thread also by Graydon
--
kind regards
Sune
