Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon DLs and buying compacts vs Lenses

Go to last post
C

cast iron head

Member
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
These Nikon DL's with bright lenses and covering large focal lengths in a pocketable body raise very interesting questions in my mind. At what stage/price/functionality/capability/weight and pocketabilty levels would it be better to get these than similar focal length and brightness lenses (which are likely to be much heavier)?

Yes the lenses are for forever but digital cameras have already in some people's books or will soon enough reach levels where the additional improvement in the end result photo would probably come from technique than technology particularly for amateurs and enthusiasts.
 
Camera's are rapidly becoming good enough, the question is the DL good enough?

People think nothing of what is effectively spending 600-800 effectively on a throwaway smartphone.

I often shoot two bodies one with a 24-70 the other 70-200, for compactness it is convenient that they split for travel convenience.

There is the DL with 18-50 is going to be an interesting product to watch, I could be enticed to get that fixed / attached and all at the right price

I for one hope the Nikon 1 line doesn't end, but sales will decide that.
 
I have a feeling that the size advantages of the small sensor/camera work for those who can work within the sensor limits. When you begin to build a system by adding lenses (and spending money), I'm thinking it makes more sense to go for a system that has the added opportunities and flexibility, etc., of the larger sensor systems. Otherwise you work out of the convenience but not out of the limits.

We have an RX100 in the family, an NEX-6 and an aps-c Nikon dslr system. I've been torn somewhat about building up the NEX system but at this point, I'm avoiding adding lenses there that (more or less) duplicate the dslr lenses I have because that )E mount) system is still somewhat limited when it comes to reach and action and some things I do, I need/want the dslr.

Most of our travel is car based in the US so the weight is less an issue. If we were to do more travel that was air based or better suited to light, compact systems, maybe I'll kick myself - but right now it's more western US than (comparatively) old and compact European cities with a lot of walking or the like.
 
chipmaster said:
There is the DL with 18-50 is going to be an interesting product to watch, I could be enticed to get that fixed / attached and all at the right price
Click to expand...
+ 1

I shoot mostly in daylight, so "brightness" is not paramount for me. However, budget is. A WA zoom in the M4/3 range to match 18-50 is not cheap, or particularly compact. And I don't need that much width very often. If/when the prices for used DL18-50s come down from the stratosphere, that camera will be tempting. I have carried a dual M4/3 setup on vacations, and that worked out well. I think I could add the DL18-50 to the bag without too much trouble.

The other DL, not so much. It's range is much more common, many of us already have that covered. Maybe a 3rd DL model? Covering 55-105 with as much aperture as possible?

Kelly Cook
 
I can't see me giving up an OVF for my main camera at any time in the near future, but for a video unit that's a different story. I think the DL24-500 may just fit the bill, although i will wait for a few price drops and see how it performs video wise. The FZ1000 is another option, although the one thing that pulls me to the Nikon is the likely amazing Nikon1 like AF speed.
 
2 types of lens I WANT but cannot justify the cost in DSLR or mirrorless are:

Super Wide Angle (when I travel on vacation)
Super Telephoto (zoo, birding, etcc)

Because I rarely shoot @either extremes, they're costly lens to own for that rare occasion when I need them. I find DL to be attractively price. Sony 10-18mm or Panasonic 7-14mm cost about $900. Buying Nikon DL10-50 is like getting a free camera with a lens purchase.

Likewise, you cannot find a 24-500mm equivalent lens on that Size, Weight, or cost in any DSLR or mirrorless. It'll also bring some competition to Canon G3X, Panasonic FZ1000, and Sony RX10.
 
Craig, you are not as weight conscious as some of us are and you want to work at the limits so you are not the target audience for such cameras. Having said that have you ever considered mirror less, the likes of Fuji or OMD Oly?
 
007peter said:
2 types of lens I WANT but cannot justify the cost in DSLR or mirrorless are:

Super Wide Angle (when I travel on vacation)
Super Telephoto (zoo, birding, etcc)

Because I rarely shoot @either extremes, they're costly lens to own for that rare occasion when I need them. I find DL to be attractively price. Sony 10-18mm or Panasonic 7-14mm cost about $900. Buying Nikon DL10-50 is like getting a free camera with a lens purchase.

Likewise, you cannot find a 24-500mm equivalent lens on that Size, Weight, or cost in any DSLR or mirrorless. It'll also bring some competition to Canon G3X, Panasonic FZ1000, and Sony RX10.
Click to expand...
I am also in a similar boat, I have a wide angle lens but I find it hard to justify it for its weight but I carry it nevertheless as I mostly shoot landscape and architecture.

Super Telephoto is another one that I cannot justify for its weight and cost as 1 in 1000 picture I shoot needs it. BUT when you need it, you need it.
 
I found myself leaving the camera at home most of the time. Even the one body with two kit lenses became too much trouble. I had lowered my standards to iPhone photo level. Yikes, time to take action.

Sold the SLR and now shoot just the two cameras in my gear list. I'm willing to take them along more, so I get better pix than the SLR I didn't bring could deliver.

Today, I went on an urban family day trip, and the G9X was just the thing. SLR would've been at home.

If you find that happening to you, THAT is the point you should go for the high-end compact. If not, by all means lug the good stuff around.

Maybe it's a family man thing, but I already had a backpack full of water bottles, snacks, and little jackets to carry. No desire to add much more in the way of cameras.
 
Yes, it does happen often especially in social situations where you need a more conspicuous camera. Mirrorless do videos really well in such situations.

DSLR is not for video is the refrain but you would rather carry just one thing that does both.

IF I was a bit more fond of the EVFs I would have switched already.

The other issue that crops up is that with a DSLR you are the one who ends up taking pictures of others. You hand your cameras to others and you get the weirdest pictures. With compacts this happens less often.
 
If I was in the market for a premium compact camera, I would wasn't to ensure easy access to clean dust off the sensor. Seen too many compact cameras ruined by dust on the sensor with no practical or economic repair method available. For that reason I would always favour a compact mirrorless camera with a pancake removable lens. Something like a pen light from Olympus. Unless a superzoom was required of course. There has to be compromises.
 
cast iron head said:
Yes, it does happen often especially in social situations where you need a more conspicuous camera. Mirrorless do videos really well in such situations.
Click to expand...
Did you mean less conspicuous?

cast iron head said:
DSLR is not for video is the refrain but you would rather carry just one thing that does both.

IF I was a bit more fond of the EVFs I would have switched already.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I still prefer optical viewfinders for still shots. I may end up getting a compact dSLR with a 35 and 50mm pancake lenses and a short telephoto prime for portraits. I haven't tried the background blur presets from the integrated lens cameras yet.

cast iron head said:
The other issue that crops up is that with a DSLR you are the one who ends up taking pictures of others. You hand your cameras to others and you get the weirdest pictures. With compacts this happens less often.
Click to expand...
I haven't found that to be the case. I just tell them "This zooms, press here to take the pictures" and they always like it and adjust to it much faster than trying to figure out what does what on a compact. My mom, for example, always goes for the power button instead of the shutter release on the compacts.

--
 
The problem with compacts is that at least at this point they tend to offer a very limited selection of lenses-- zooms with fairly narrow ranges, zooms with wider ranges (superzooms) and 35 and 28mm equivalent primes. Anyone wanting a different kind of lens must buy an interchangeable lens camera and at least one lens.

I've been looking for a 50mm equivalent prime lens compact since I started digital photography-- not an add on lens, not an internal crop, just a simple prime lens built into a camera body. I don't think I'm ever going to get it, so late this year or early next I will probably buy into a second ILC system, more or less under protest. I'll end up with a bigger, heavier camera than what I want, but on the other hand I will have my choice of plenty of features including a built in viewfinder and decent manual controls.
 
It has a pretty narrow zoom range (28-70?), a fast lens, which is GREAT at 45-50mm. Set it in the menu to revert to the zoom position you left it at. (45-50mm) and Bob's your uncle.

Maybe the fact that it has a zoom lens would bother your OCD though.

A mirrorless ILC with a pancake prime wouldn't be much of a sacrifice either.
 
You answered your own question, didn't you?

I don't care to speculate what kind of personal quirk causes a person to recommend a zoom lens to someone who specifies that they are looking for a prime.
 
Last edited:
My personal quirk is that I'm open-minded. I often appreciate feedback from those with a different point of view, so I give mine where I think it might be appreciated.

For example, if the zoom lens is sharp, fast, compact and distortion free, then why does it have to be a prime?

Don't mind me though. Keep complaining that no one makes just exactly what you want. Maybe one day, the manufacturers will decide to lose a lot of money catering to the 1% who want something different.
 
Reread your own initial response and note the personal comment that in my book qualifies as name calling. Most people do not take kindly to being "diagnosed" by strangers and I am hardly a saint.

For the record there are other reasons to choose a lens other than its optical qualities. Shooting experience counts for a lot, and I prefer primes to zoom except under certain particular circumstances. I am aware of the LX100 (I have been following this market carefully for about three years) and it is an interesting camera in many ways and people get good results with it.
 
Smaug01 said:
cast iron head said:
Yes, it does happen often especially in social situations where you need a more conspicuous camera. Mirrorless do videos really well in such situations.
Click to expand...
Did you mean less conspicuous?
Click to expand...
Yes thank you.
Smaug01 said:
Smaug01 said:
DSLR is not for video is the refrain but you would rather carry just one thing that does both.

IF I was a bit more fond of the EVFs I would have switched already.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I still prefer optical viewfinders for still shots. I may end up getting a compact dSLR with a 35 and 50mm pancake lenses and a short telephoto prime for portraits. I haven't tried the background blur presets from the integrated lens cameras yet.
Smaug01 said:
The other issue that crops up is that with a DSLR you are the one who ends up taking pictures of others. You hand your cameras to others and you get the weirdest pictures. With compacts this happens less often.
Click to expand...
I haven't found that to be the case. I just tell them "This zooms, press here to take the pictures" and they always like it and adjust to it much faster than trying to figure out what does what on a compact. My mom, for example, always goes for the power button instead of the shutter release on the compacts.

--
Click to expand...
Different countries, I guess. In South Asia, DSLRs have only started becoming common so just the fact that you need to bring your eyes to the viewfinder is hard to grasp for the common man on the street. So they can't really compose.

And if they do have experience with that, they cannot still handle prime lenses and always play with the lens barrel.
 
yardcoyote said:
The problem with compacts is that at least at this point they tend to offer a very limited selection of lenses-- zooms with fairly narrow ranges, zooms with wider ranges (superzooms) and 35 and 28mm equivalent primes. Anyone wanting a different kind of lens must buy an interchangeable lens camera and at least one lens.

I've been looking for a 50mm equivalent prime lens compact since I started digital photography-- not an add on lens, not an internal crop, just a simple prime lens built into a camera body. I don't think I'm ever going to get it, so late this year or early next I will probably buy into a second ILC system, more or less under protest. I'll end up with a bigger, heavier camera than what I want, but on the other hand I will have my choice of plenty of features including a built in viewfinder and decent manual controls.
Click to expand...
You would have to add ovf DP2 Merrill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top