"I am selling my Nikon gear"

Started Nov 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP bigpigbig Senior Member • Posts: 1,721
Re: With all due respect...

jtan163 wrote:

bigpigbig wrote:

BUT, "good enough" FOR ME, is not ALWAYS good enough. I want the option of having THE BEST.

bigpignbig this post is not aimed soley or specifically at you and I suspect from the description of your job you know better.

It's interesting that a lot of FF shooters equate FF with the best.

But FF is not the be all and end all MF digital is pretty darn nice. I'd so so far as to say better than most FF sensors.

FF cameras may have better ISO perfornance and some DSLRs will have better AF than MF.

You are right. And if I could afford a Phase One IQ180 back on an Arca Swiss Rm3d with a Schneider 35mm APO-Digitar XL, I'd have one for those times when it would be appropriate. I'd love an 8x10 scanning back as well for my Norma Sinar.

But pure IQ, blow up and print the size of a bill board? Maybe not.

Chack this out: http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/

He concludes that the D800e actually has some image quality ADVANTAGES over the IQ180.

The D800e is not just a FF, 36mp camera. It is a phenomenal 36mp FF camera!

The fact that it can even be compared to a $50,000 system is testament to that. It is a $3000 body vs $45,000 back (no body).

Shallow depth of field definitely not.

True. But with the 200 f2 or 85 1.4 I am not sure a shallower DOF would be desirable. I am already trying to get the iris and not the eye lashes.

When people say FF is the best, they really mean FF is the best camera for shooting FF sized images using FF size lens and emulating 35mm film format/geometry/DOF.

Or perhaps they might in same cases mean shooting fast moving targets. But they are the only things FF excels at in reality.

But don't forget, there has been so much effort (market driven) put into developing these systems for the past 50 years, that they have grown into very mature products. They are standing on the shoulders of giants. Lens line up alone should be convincing.

Because for high IQ there nearly always have been better choices.

True. And always will be. No matter how good small sensors get, bigger sensors will ALWAYS be more capable (either with larger photosensitive sites or with higher resolution)

As an M43 user I'm often accused of (in the nicest possible way) sensor envy. M43/s two times crop factor means a ƒ2.8 behaves like a /5,6 or worse DOF wise.

Ignore them. Your photos are amazing! and your pack is 1/3rd the weight.

But again the FF shooters all forget that if it is shallow DOF (and it seems many do) then there may be better choices.

Not really affordable (for me) choices. Please let me know if I am wrong, I'll go buy one tomorrow.

Same for serious flash work, where an MF lens with leaf shutter's can give you crazy sync speeds. I believe up to something like 1/2000

I almost pulled the trigger on a x100s for this reason. Though with HSS and a few SB900s on the Nikon, it gets halfway there. The x100s is still looking like a great option though.

As far as m4/3 goes, as long as shallow DOF and bigger than 8x10 prints are not important, there are some great systems. I loved my Oly. I had it converted to IR and then sold it when I got an XE-1 converted. Built in IS was awesome! I had a MF 400mm f2.8 which became a stabilized 800mm f5.6! Oh, yes.

 bigpigbig's gear list:bigpigbig's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +12 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow