D850 to ... Z7 - what improved (that mattered)? Locked

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
T O Shooter Forum Pro • Posts: 11,007
Re: Not a lot...

shuncheung wrote:

T O Shooter wrote:

shuncheung wrote:

T O Shooter wrote:

And, when Jim Kasson and Lance B says that any difference between the 70-200e s are splitting hairs (paraphrasing), and the Sigma 40 is untouched by anything in S, I tend to not believe the "better lenses" part. If it were not for paragraph 2 above, Nikon could refresh all the wide angles in f mount, and there wouldn't be enough difference to matter. Probably doesn't as it is.

There are a lot more lenses than the 70-200mm/f2.8. Just take a very simple example: my 14-30mm/f4 S is a very versatile wide zoom that can accept conventional, 82mm screw-on filters.

No such lens exists in any brand for SLRs. I happen to have the Nikkor 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S in the F-mount. The bulging front element makes it difficult to use and travel with. As a result, that is a lens I rarely use. I have seen people use a complex rectangular filter set up on it, making it even bulker. That isn't something I want to deal with.

So--------- You'll spend $20,000 to switch to a system that will allow you to put filters on a 14-something zoom.

In fact, I am in the middle of gradually migrating to a system that allows me to:

  • use a compact 14-30mm/f4 zoom that accepts conventional filters
  • many other better lenses that are impossible due to the mirror in DSLRs
  • 20 fps or even faster to capture action. Such frame rate is impossible due to the mechanical limitation of the mirror. E.g. I shoot a lot of hummingbirds in the spring. Their wings vibrate many times a second, and I prefer images with wings up positions. The limitation of DSLRs is very obvious in such scenario.
  • better video capture

Miniscule reasons that caused you to believe that another system was better.  The 70-200 F to Z is basically unnoticeable in the difference in IQ. Nothing Zee makes touches the 40 Sigma.  Wonderful that you want hummingbird wings in the up position.  Like the world hasn't seen enough hummingbird pictures with next to zero difference between one and the next.

DSLRs are stills cameras with a video side add on.  I have no interest in video. If I did, I'd buy a proper video camera.

Thanks, but I'll stick to my 14-24G and save the 20 grand. And have a better, complete camera / lens system.

The better, complete camera system is shifting away from DSLRs.

Foolishness.  The Zees are years away from being what f mount is.  The roadmap includes a 400 2.8 and a 600 f4, and an 85 1.2, lenses most people don't need or can't afford. Look around here and see how many people have those exotics.  Sigma won't even make a lens for it.

I am old enough to see the world change before. Many years ago some people prefer black and white. Later on their prefer manual focus, and then they wanted to stick with film .... Meanwhile, technology marches on.

And the world will quickly change to a new paradigm with both DSLRs and ML being a dead end. ML technology is not as good as DSLRs in many ways - just different.

-- hide signature --

A Canon G5 and a bit of Nikon gear.
---------------------------
All cameras are so good nowadays, that the good stuff is kinda "given" or "expected". It is the limitations that get to you when you use them in real world situations. Windsurfer LA

 T O Shooter's gear list:T O Shooter's gear list
Canon PowerShot G5 Nikon D4S Nikon D500 Nikon D850 +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD TOF guy
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow