A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
anotherMike Forum Pro • Posts: 10,281
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS

I'm on neither side of the big war about Z vs DSLR. I choose tools that solve problems.

For studio work, I don't like the EVF with it's lag and the sense of things when one pans, and I don't care that I'm using very heavy glass, so the D850 (and any future replacement which I'd get) will be the studio kit, and the 40 art, 85 art, 105E and 135/2 Apo Sonnar will be the lenses I will use there. So for studio work, I have absolutely zero problems or complaints that need solving, none. I am beyond good to go here. Anything I spend for this will be lighting gear or light modifiers, not cameras and lenses until a d850 replacement is announced, and I get the feeling we'll be waiting a bit....

For landscape work, I had a problem: I really don't like any of the 18/20/21mm options in F mount, none of them, and again, have owned or tried them all. So that was the initial reason to pick up a Z7; I could use the 20/1.8S, and it's a LOT better than the F mount variations, so a problem was clearly and completely solved.

Things change, and so might my work. I sense some need for a body that is lighter, more fluid, and has better video capability for some possibilities, and while I'm not yet certain the magnitude of how much of this kind of work I'll be doing, I did feel that it would be the Z7 getting the call, and thus it made sense to get the 24-70/2.8S lens. Since I got it, I obviously was going to see how it fared against my very high end prime collection for landscape work, because *if* the 24-70/2.8S could meet my image quality standards at a couple of focal lengths for landscape, that might mean I could pare down the weight of the kit a bit more, and that might perhaps let me get something like the 300PF since I can't fit that at the moment. I've shot all the 24-70 variants over the years in F mount, and none of them meet my standards at any of the focal lengths for landscape. I wasn't honestly sure if the 24-70/2.8S could, because I'm a skeptic and don't believe all the hype with a cup of kool-aid in my hand, but after serious, lengthy testing (not quick "I shot this in a camera store and here is my opinion of it" garbage), I was honestly shocked at how good it is for landscape, and after evaluation, feel it's easily good enough at 35,50 and 60mm, and while it barely misses my standards at 24 and 28mm, it's far closer than a zoom has any right to be. It is clearly superior to the F mount variations at the intermediate apertures I tend to use for such, and smaller/lighter. So the 24-70 is a problem solver in that it is the lens that makes sense for the new-possibilities of my work on a Z7, and seems actually be a problem solver in that I can replace a 35 and 50mm prime with it for landscape and gain some flexibility in the mid range. Didn't expect that.

In the end, as I enter next year, I expect to have a split landscape kit: Z7 with the 20 and the 24-70 and maybe the 105MC if I can find one, and the D850 with the 25/1.4 Milvus and 135/2 Apo Sonnar.

Some people buy gear just to have the latest and then post about it incessantly and defend it with fervor. Some people don't want to admit progress has occurred, and leave their head stuck in the sand, thinking there is no improvement, but haven't tried it to find out. Some people have honestly no valid reason to move to new gear/mount/etc because they've thought it through and it doesn't make sense or if they do purchase new gear, do so because it solves a problem they have. I'm the latter type.

I just don't see the need for all the angst. Cameras/lenses are tools, sometimes they solve problems, sometimes they don't.


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow