So, if you wanted a second system

[Aleo Veuliah]

Part of it is gut feel, based on years of excellent Nikon film
service with my faithful old F3. Still working fine.

The D3x is absurdly priced, it will probably be followed by a more
modestly priced D700x, when Sony starts selling more. Nikon didn't
get Canon on the run by being stupid. That moment of hubris with the
D3x will be tempered by the reality of global recession. Canon? They
seem to be interested more and more in gadgets like video, rather
than solid results.

Besides, I had an opportunity to compare my E3 shots to a 1DsII, shot
at the same company event. I wasn't even remotely impressed with what
the Canon turned out. Dull colors, not particularly sharp rendition.
The little E3 with 7-14 and PL25 just left that mongo sized Canon in
the dust.

I have a lot more faith in Nikon to support me with good glass than
Sony. Right now, Sony is beholden to Zeiss to supply proper lenses.
Nikon turns out the 14-24 and 24-70, for sure the equal of the best
ZD in quality. Probably more, but those are the only two I'm familiar
with. Sony has turned out... nothing but recycled KM film lens
designs so far. And the price they charge for those antiques, they
should use a gun if they're going to rob people.

If Olympus has taught me anything, it's the value of good glass. Look
what they've done using that tiny sensor. As long as we're dreaming,
it boggles the mind to think of what their optical prowess could do
on a larger scale.

Agree with that. Nikon is now the best second (or first) system choice , good performance, low noise, good DR, excelent lenses. (for me Olympus Zuiko are superb)

Sony have a LOT to do, to catch Nikon or even Canon.

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

http://aleo-photo.pt.vu

 

[esco]

If money were not a parameter, and a substantial need, I would look
at Hasselblad, since the mantra is, the bigger the better. For the
detail, for the DOF control, and the optical performance.

Otherwise, the 35mm sensor size seems getting a much deeper foothold
into the market, so with still some competition (no oligopol yet
until the share 33% each of the market), the price performance will
become attractive. For the low light capability and DOF control. But
again, choosing this sensor size requires a matching line up of
lenses, f/4 should be banned for FF135! For making the investment
required at all, here we are talking f/1.4 and f/2.0 only, anything
else is a waste of the investment, and one rather should stay with
APS-C or even with Four Thirds.

Are we forgetting the fact that you're gaining stops of light with FF? You don't NEED super bright, super wide apertures like you actually do need with 4/3's if you plan on being creative with your dof and to stay away from the poor high-iso performance.

The upcoming µFT is another system, where size/performance is the
main factor. Either utilize the small lenses throughout the whole
ultrawide to telephoto spectrum, or proliferate with f/2.0 zooms (the
short register mount frees from the need of Angenieux architecture).

It's too early to tell if m4/3's becomes one of those elegantly styled and priced snobby hobby systems, by the sounds of it if you want good bright glass it sure seems that way and for me it's a bit of a wash because for serious and low-light shooting that's what FF is for and I mention that because a secondary system is the topic here.

With something like m4/3's all i'd want is some very portable decent optics to have fun with, nothing serious. If anything I probably won't even look at that system, the e-4xx is so much of a better value with very little difference in user practicality because after-all you still can't put m4/3's in your pocket.
--
Oldschool Evolt shooter

 

[Phil]

A litttle off subject, but isn't 240 a good number to print wiith Epson?
--
Phil

 

[vlatko]

a very valuable wife

With all respects to mujana's wife, it's not that valuable.

If we take the highest prices bandied about, S2 body only is 20K euros. It was the price of Hasselblad H3D-39 when introduced.

OTOH, the CEO of Leica mentioned the price of 10 to 20K euros at the official launch for body only.

What happened there might have been what happened to Nikon - if Canon sells their top camera for $8000, so can we. And now they are surprised that people react negatively.

With Leica, they obviously planned on competing in price with Hasselblad, but Hasselblad surprised them by lowering the price of the equivalent camera down to 15K euros together with the "kit" lens and viewfinder. Leica still has a lot of room to react before the next April, though.

If they take the "popular" route, you'll be able to get a studio and landscape camera with half again the pixel count of top level Canons or Nikons for about 2000 euros more. S2 might start looking interesting then.

And yes, I've got a weakness for non-mainstream stuff, from music to clothes to cameras.

 

[cherrybloke]

The Nikon D700 is about the best all-around camera ever built. Top-notch build, AF, frame rate, best flash system.

You want to do landscapes too? Pick up a Canon 5DII and one of those nifty Nikon-to-Canon adapters. Now you can use the superlative 14-24 on the Canon.

Add one of the new micro-mini's or whatever they call them from Olympus for the pocket.

Done.

 

[esco]

I'd have to saddle up that Nikon D3.
I got to fondle one at Calumet with 70-200.
When I win the lottery...
--
bob naegele
san diego, ca
http://www.rjndesign.com/

Personally I don't see FF being an ideal sports kit, for example 200mm is a good reach with 4/3's and that's considering you have access to good media spots and you're not far out on the sidelines or stands but with FF suddenly it becomes close to useless. This why i'm considering dual systems, like 4/3's for reach and an FF system for high-res/low-light/wide-angle stuff. I think for many having a practical handling long reach FF system is a bit of an endless chase for length.
--
Oldschool Evolt shooter

 

[Clarkey]

All this talk about the ideal FF system, but what it will always come down to for me is affordability, size, and image quality. I think m4/3rds will have all this in spades, I'm just waiting for the system to make it's next expansion with a new oly and panny body plus new lenses to make a purchase.
--
W.L. Clark Swimm
http://www.clarkswimm.com

 

[mfbernstein]

You'd invest on a system based on 2 lenses that aren't even released
yet? A 24MP system at that?

Well, I must say the Zeiss lenses are amazing. The 85mm and 135mm
primes are up to anybody's standards for sure. I also have shot with
the new 24-70 Zeiss, and in my opinion it is one of the best standard
zooms I have ever used - I am guessing the 16-35 will not disappoint
either.

I'd want more than guesses if I was about to invest $8000+ in a camera/system, but maybe that's just me.

Especially important in the case of the 16-35, since Louis seems to be mainly a UWA sort of fellow.

As to the rest of the lenses, once the D3X and 5D2 are out, I'm hoping we can finally get some good head-to-head testing of FF glass on high-res sensors.

Cheers,

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

 

[mfbernstein]

Personally I don't see FF being an ideal sports kit, for example
200mm is a good reach with 4/3's and that's considering you have
access to good media spots and you're not far out on the sidelines or
stands but with FF suddenly it becomes close to useless.

Useless? Put a D3x in DX crop mode and you've got nearly the same reach, coupled with a higher frame-rate and the same resolution. It may not be quite the same, but it's far from useless.

Presumably Sony will do the same thing and push Canon in that direction too...

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

 

[SirSeth]

I've been surfing Ebay and looking for a U20 for a good deal. Last week one went for $24 bucks and I should have bid. Silly me. Anyhow, the U20 was my first digital camera and I want another after these many years with the E-1.

So yeah, my second brand choice would likely be Sony also. Other than that, I stay away from serious work. But if I were more serious, the A900 or the D700 would be on my list. And if I were richer, the new Leica DSLR would be tempting or the new DSLR that RED is threatening to release. From a landscape perspective, I still wish that Pentax had gone ahead with the 18MP 645D.

Cheerio,
Seth

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

 

[Gary Papilsky]

I agree with you Louis, Price points, lens selection, and design/ergonomics/layout I really like what Sony has to offer and I would consider the A900 system. I am very sold on the A900 body and how easy it is to use this camera with the egomaniacs/layout it offers. That is a very important point for me, and the E-3 fell short in the area. The only hold back for me is the lack of weather proofing across the entire line up.

There are many surprises coming from Olympus in the next 12 months, I believe they have addressed most my issues, expect perhaps for the button types I want. (such as my E-1 has) even the m4/3 will likely meet my expectations and may be something I would consider (light weight/size) if the price point is good.

Full frame is interesting at this point, but not something I am willing to jump into just yet. Still no other brands meet all my needs, within a reasonable price/lens/carry point.
--
Gary S P



http://www.garysworld.net

 

[esco]

Personally I don't see FF being an ideal sports kit, for example
200mm is a good reach with 4/3's and that's considering you have
access to good media spots and you're not far out on the sidelines or
stands but with FF suddenly it becomes close to useless.

Useless? Put a D3x in DX crop mode and you've got nearly the same
reach, coupled with a higher frame-rate and the same resolution. It
may not be quite the same, but it's far from useless.

Presumably Sony will do the same thing and push Canon in that
direction too...

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' -
Ed Abbey

I may very well be exaggerating but for the sports shooting that I do yeah it would be nearly useless and i'd much rather not use crop mode. Just thinking of using the lenses that i'd need to get the reach I want makes me shudder, the weight and expense of it all. I shoot mainly drifting and gt racing, there is no sitting or standing stationary with a monopod at least not with the style images I like capturing.
--
Oldschool Evolt shooter

 

[PDXguy]

--
Regards,

Steve

'Sometimes the mind, for reasons we don't necessarily understand, just decides to go to the store for a quart of milk' - Diane Frolov and Andrew Schneider

 

[Louis_Dobson]

How are you getting on with it?

D3 has slowly changed my whole style - are you finding that?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[William Gordon]

for heavyweight work, where would you go?

Currently, to my surprise, I would go Sony.

The A900, 16-35, 24-70, 70-400 looks like a killer system, on the
face of it.

Canon have blown it - they still can't make a decent UWA, and the
5DII appears to put black borders to the right of highlights (you
have to laugh). The IDSIII is stupid money.

Nikon have blown it (unfortunately, because I'm stuck with them), the
D3 and D700 are "only" 12MP, and the D3x is hilariously, absurdly,
over-priced, which means the D700x will be too. Looks like Sony are
shafting them for the sensor. Also they still have no usable 70-400
equivalent.

So, the winner is Sony. Who would have thought it?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

--Hi Louis

I find this thread very strange.....particularly in the Oly theater of photography. Why would anyone want something other than what they have and if they are not happy, then just move on!!

By the way, have you heard from Adrian Oxbrow lately?? He seems to have disappeared from the net

Bill Gordon

 

[Louis_Dobson]

No one camera system does everything, makes sense to have more than one if it can be funded. No, as you say, Adrian seems to have disappeared of late....
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[Olyinaz]

due to price. I'll take your word for it that there's a hole in the lens lineup (I'll bet not for long) but for the most part the only problem I have with Nikon is the dreadful price of anything better than a D300.

Yep! I'd have to seriously consider Sony right now! Hard to imagine that their premium Zeiss lenses will hurt their chances long term either...

Regards,
Oly

--



http://www.pbase.com/olyinaz

 

[illy]

Nikon are on a roll at the moment their current range of D60,90,300,3,700 and 3x are all very new bodies, plus they are updating and releasing quite a few lenses, so for me i am sticking with Oly and Nikon
--
http://illy.smugmug.com

 

[anordius]

A Leica S2 with tilt/shift lens (when it is introduced and I have won the lottery).

Arne

 

[alex66]

I already have 2 systems, fuji and oly, id only go for something completly different, a good mf or a large format. Im not likely to though unless the prices slam down. My ideal would be a high resolution rangefinder ie a digital mamiya 7. The Canon sony nikon dont realy do anything for me, perhaps pentax at a push.