Fuji S5 Vs D700 ( people have both cameras welcome to share comments)

Adoubeur wrote:

Another one thought in my mind is if i dont keep the nikon i can sell it and sell the tamron 17-50 and its place i will buy the nikkon 17-55 f2.8 they say is better optically and fuji needs good lens. but with tamron i am very very happy.

I would keep the Tamron if I were you. The Nikkor is too big and heavy.

Personally I would ditch the Tamron for the Nikkor. The Nikkor 17-55F2.8G is a bit heavy, but it has a special mojo when paired with the S5 Pro.

Due to it's strong AA filter the S5 craves sharp lenses and the 17-55 is very sharp in the center right from f/2.8. Color and 3D Pop with this zoom are excellent IMHO. It's by far the most flexible general purpose DX lens to have.

fPrime

What you said about the strong AA filter of the S5 reminds me that it was possible to send the S5 to a company. They would remove the AA filter and send the S5 back.

I remember that a photographer on a forum had tried it and was very happy with the result.

I don't know if it's still possible today,

fPrime wrote:

Adoubeur wrote:

Another one thought in my mind is if i dont keep the nikon i can sell it and sell the tamron 17-50 and its place i will buy the nikkon 17-55 f2.8 they say is better optically and fuji needs good lens. but with tamron i am very very happy.

I would keep the Tamron if I were you. The Nikkor is too big and heavy.

Personally I would ditch the Tamron for the Nikkor. The Nikkor 17-55F2.8G is a bit heavy, but it has a special mojo when paired with the S5 Pro.

Due to it's strong AA filter the S5 craves sharp lenses and the 17-55 is very sharp in the center right from f/2.8. Color and 3D Pop with this zoom are excellent IMHO. It's by far the most flexible general purpose DX lens to have.

fPrime

thank you:) my tamron also looks good .  and i am thinking if its worth to pay double the money to get the 17-55 if the tamron looks great. the follwing image i just add 1 stop exposure and some sharpening. also is loosing some contrast when upload to dpreview.

by the way something else. is not better if i decide to keep the nikon d700 to buy a nikon for fx that will work to the fuji too? i think is better idea

Easy Rider wrote:

Buy them used in NE Asia on the used market, even with shipping you'll save a fortune and just keep all of it.

Especially N.E Asians do not like buying previous models and especially used gear both due to staus and somebeleifs about inheriting previous owner's bad ju-ju, so the used market is amazing.

I was recently in Korea and 10K clicks good as new D610's were going for about 900,000 Won which is around

$821.344 US / 697.354EUR / £622.597 GBP

Literally around a third less than it would be here in the UK at least....

That's where I'm getting all my future gear from, tough I'm lucky in that I have mates there that can check, purchase and ship it for me etc.

you took it very good price especially if the shutter count is minimal by the way. what you think about the sigma 17-50 f2.8? i was thinking to buy it but finally i  go for tamron.

Also what you think about D610 compare to D700?

Andreascy wrote:

fPrime wrote:

Adoubeur wrote:

Another one thought in my mind is if i dont keep the nikon i can sell it and sell the tamron 17-50 and its place i will buy the nikkon 17-55 f2.8 they say is better optically and fuji needs good lens. but with tamron i am very very happy.

I would keep the Tamron if I were you. The Nikkor is too big and heavy.

Personally I would ditch the Tamron for the Nikkor. The Nikkor 17-55F2.8G is a bit heavy, but it has a special mojo when paired with the S5 Pro.

Due to it's strong AA filter the S5 craves sharp lenses and the 17-55 is very sharp in the center right from f/2.8. Color and 3D Pop with this zoom are excellent IMHO. It's by far the most flexible general purpose DX lens to have.

fPrime

thank you:) my tamron also looks good . and i am thinking if its worth to pay double the money to get the 17-55 if the tamron looks great. the follwing image i just add 1 stop exposure and some sharpening. also is loosing some contrast when upload to dpreview.

Not sure if that would be worth it for you to switch either. I got my 17-55 used in mint condition for $600 which made it a very good deal. But, that being said, I also would never buy it new given the wide availability of the lens on the second hand market from Nikon shooters who went on to FX.

I've not personally shot the Tamron 17-50 but I did look at the first two pages of Flickr images from the lens. Based on what I saw there my only concern might be that it tends to render images like a zoom... that is, without much spatial dimensionality or 3D Pop. I would agree with you that it's certainly sharp enough, though.

by the way something else. is not better if i decide to keep the nikon d700 to buy a nikon for fx that will work to the fuji too? i think is better idea

Yes, that's generally true. FX lenses can work equally well on DX cameras. Most of my lenses are also FX. But I always liked the way the Nikkor 17-55G rendered on DX and really love it on the S5 Pro. It's just one of those lenses that happens to be particularly well matched with that body.

Nice image highlighting the natural skin tones of the S5 Pro here. Of course, with only the dock and subject I can't comment much on the 3D Pop of the 17-50. It would really be fun to see both lenses shot head to head against each other!

fPrime

The sigma reviews as optically good as the nikon. The build quality is not as good but at the same time that doesn't make it bad. The af is not as fast but is still very fast. For non tank like build you get a less heavy and less expensive lens. Mine has taken drops, knocks and rain though of course I would not recommend that. For af speed that unless you're a journalist or sport shooter you're not going to notice the difference. And it has OS.

That just about sums it up

I'll post a few shots later taken on the nikon d5300 in different conditions.

As for d610 vs d700 I can't say from experience. The d700 I have held and it is heavy as heck.

One has better af and much more resolution that with same lens you really can tell the difference. I know as I had exact same dilemma so l
Posted on the nikon forum asking for people's best photos from both. The d700 to me showed it's age. Softer and less detailed.

That said, some like the d700 for it's more film like image quality. But that to me is subjective as you could theoretically put a d610 in jpeg mode and hamstring it to have less dr and sharpness etc. Or in post you could surely make a raw preset to mimick the output of the d700?

But I will leave that question to more experienced posters as I am an apsc street photographer and have not used either camera

fishy wishy wrote:

Andreascy wrote:

thank you:) my tamron also looks good . and i am thinking if its worth to pay double the money to get the 17-55 if the tamron looks great. the follwing image i just add 1 stop exposure and some sharpening. also is loosing some contrast when upload to dpreview.

by the way something else. is not better if i decide to keep the nikon d700 to buy a nikon for fx that will work to the fuji too? i think is better idea

The Tamron 17-50 non-VC is almost as good a DX lens as you are going to get, you don't need to worry about exchanging it with a 17-55 Nikkor. A sideways step.

Though the s5 has real strong points, I don't see it fitting in your setup for your purposes. Your setup in fact looks like it grew ad-hoc.

You've got 5 lenses and 1 body? The lowest body in the range, too. If you want to make money from photography, that is not a reliable way. You need a second body- a true backup, not one that does something completely different.

I don't know why you chose Olympus, but if you want to make money from portrait photography, you are handicapped by the big depth of field with Olympus which will not differentiate your photos as much as possible from all the people that already have bridge cameras. It's a simple step to put a bit of distance between you and what anybody else could do on a lucky day with a bridge or compact camera.

If you want photos with novel and dreamy defocused backgrounds that bridge cameras find hard to do, you need full frame, the D700. The s5 is only 1/3 of the way there from your Olympus. Added to that, the high iso on the s5 is a stinker. I would try to avoid iso 800 on it if I could and just forget about more than that.

I used the s5 like fPrime says- summer walkabouts, you don't need to adjust exposure compensation downwards, you let the highlight processing take care of overexposure. It's not for photographing people indoors, unless they will pose for you and you have VR or flash. It's not in truth a versatile camera by today's standards. Things that few people want go cheap.

If you want to get serious about portrait photography then you don't need the very sharpest lenses but you could do with a larger sensor for less contrasty, smoother tonal transitions than smaller sensors have.

Hello. I will disagree with  you. 5 lenses each one is quality lens for each purpose.  At the moment i dont need backup because i am not a professional . just when i will take professional works and if this happens the first step is to buy aditional body:)    Also i will choose the lens according my specific needs.The lowest body in the range too is identical and produce the same image quality with em1 and em5ii that are the top of the line bodies. Olympus is a great brand and it was my first dslr camera so i choose to invest to this.  You must not familiar with olympus bodies and lenses. most people  they stuck to the full frame cameras and they dont look back. First and the most importand olympus is small. compare to the fuji s5 that have an amezing body with pro controls , em10 wins. so easy to carry. easy to shoot. make your life much easier.You will get the same picture quality in the sun if you shoot with olympus and a good lens and if you shoot with full frame. the difference is the high iso that full frame wins buy 1-2 stops but in the other side olympus have this amazing on body stabilizer. most of the time you dont need to shoot at iso 3200 , but at even 1600 olympus gives you nice results. About novel and defocused background this is not true. i can do this with any lens i have. even the 12-40 at 40 f2.8 have a beautiful background.you can check the follwing photo and tell me if this camera can produce dreamy background or not:) and something else. with any dslr today you can have a beautiful portrait  but you have to have a beautiful model, suitable light , make up artist and a post processing:)

fishy wishy wrote:

The world is full of people who just bought a camera and think they can become a professional. You know it all according to you so why ask the questions. Go and buy into three different systems and keep dreaming of being a professional then.

Hello. it seems that your knowledge is limited about m/43 cameras and mirroless systems. A lot of professionals own nikon on canon Full frame dslr are moving   to  mirroless systems  because are smaller with small lens   and easy to carry. technology moving fast. and smaller cameras have their advantages too. You said about Depth of field and the dreaming background and that you cant achieved this by the  olympus. And this is a mistake or a limited knowledge about those systems. A lot of people today that own a full frame camera get the name of professional easily by doing some paid work. I remember when i was first man in a marriage of my friend 2 years before i saw the photos by the proffessional photographer and i said that he could take better photos. 2 years after  i check again the photos and was just a rubbish. when i check the exif data those photos was taken by the Nikon D4. To be honest i expected to be a cheap dslr but i surprised. A Camera is not making you better photographer.And a dreamy bokeh is not the most importand for making professional photography.  And about the D700 i expect to be a good camera but even if its the best camera in the world the olympus beats and the size that is matters too much.

thank you