Sensor Size & Versatility

[Martin.au]

tko wrote:

There are two type of photographers in the world. Those that want good photos, and those that want equipment that weighs less.

So here's the challenge. Give me a compact system with a 24-105 range equivalent. Any number of lens. Of equal or better speed, which means around F2.0 to F2.8. Add up the weight and see what you get. No one will ever respond to this.

It doesn't really matter if M43rd or whatever weighs a pound less. Because you can get a superzoom that weighs a pound less than that. And so on and so on. The point is, if you let one or two pounds drive your hobby, it's no longer photography. It's backbacking.

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

tko wrote:

The 5d and 24-105 does about everything your set of lenses do. Not quite as wide, but much longer. 1.9 lbs + 1.4 lbs = 3.3 lbs.

Once, more, your lenses are F6, F4.2, F2.7 equivalent. And with the Canon you don't even have to change any lenses.

Is changing lenses a nuisance? Is Canon the only one with 24-105mm equivalent lens that will fit only on FF bodies?

Listening to the person who doesn't want to carry a heavy camera, that's a funny statement. I don't find an extra pound a nuisance.

Yes, the Canon is a pound heavier. But is it really a show stopper?

The camera body itself is nearly 1.5 lb heavier. Then add lens differences. And bulk can often be a show stopper.

Canon 5DMkIII versus Sony NEX-6 - Size Comparison (Body only)

A body can be made the size of a thimble. Hey, why don't you compare a cell phone to a 5d? Because it's the lens that gives the performance. Show me a comparison with equal performing lenses, and the gap, price, and weight narrow dramatically.

Just because you CAN carry a bunch of lenses doesn't mean you have to.

Correct. But irrelevant.

Actually not. M43rd people always show comparisons using tiny lenses compared to some 400MM F5.6 monster. If one or two FF lenses will beat all compact sensor lenses put together, why isn't that fair?

That's a FF fallacy dreamed up the M43rds crowd, who love to show huge lenses on FF.

up, I'd walk into dinner with one body and one lenses. Why not?

Yes you can. Heck, you can walk with a Medium format camera for all I care.

Which would still be better than a compact sensor and a dozen lenses falling out of your pockets.

Ok

om-d, 12-35, 60mm macro

24-120, 900gm and 2:1 macro for funz.

Can be carried in jacket pocket.

Actually, doing such short range stuff you can ditch the EVF. Go the basic pen and shave off another 100-200gm.

 

[Ulric]

Biggs23 wrote:

Draek wrote:

You really think a Nikon D800 with a 70-200/2.8 lens will be as unnoticeable as an Olympus E-PL5 with a 45/1.8 by someone you're wishing to photograph?

You can be a LOT farther away with that D800 to get the same shot, so yes, I do.

That's an odd thing for a professional photographer to write.

 

[Martin.au]

Mjankor wrote:

tko wrote:

There are two type of photographers in the world. Those that want good photos, and those that want equipment that weighs less.

So here's the challenge. Give me a compact system with a 24-105 range equivalent. Any number of lens. Of equal or better speed, which means around F2.0 to F2.8. Add up the weight and see what you get. No one will ever respond to this.

It doesn't really matter if M43rd or whatever weighs a pound less. Because you can get a superzoom that weighs a pound less than that. And so on and so on. The point is, if you let one or two pounds drive your hobby, it's no longer photography. It's backbacking.

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

tko wrote:

The 5d and 24-105 does about everything your set of lenses do. Not quite as wide, but much longer. 1.9 lbs + 1.4 lbs = 3.3 lbs.

Once, more, your lenses are F6, F4.2, F2.7 equivalent. And with the Canon you don't even have to change any lenses.

Is changing lenses a nuisance? Is Canon the only one with 24-105mm equivalent lens that will fit only on FF bodies?

Listening to the person who doesn't want to carry a heavy camera, that's a funny statement. I don't find an extra pound a nuisance.

Yes, the Canon is a pound heavier. But is it really a show stopper?

The camera body itself is nearly 1.5 lb heavier. Then add lens differences. And bulk can often be a show stopper.

Canon 5DMkIII versus Sony NEX-6 - Size Comparison (Body only)

A body can be made the size of a thimble. Hey, why don't you compare a cell phone to a 5d? Because it's the lens that gives the performance. Show me a comparison with equal performing lenses, and the gap, price, and weight narrow dramatically.

Just because you CAN carry a bunch of lenses doesn't mean you have to.

Correct. But irrelevant.

Actually not. M43rd people always show comparisons using tiny lenses compared to some 400MM F5.6 monster. If one or two FF lenses will beat all compact sensor lenses put together, why isn't that fair?

That's a FF fallacy dreamed up the M43rds crowd, who love to show huge lenses on FF.

up, I'd walk into dinner with one body and one lenses. Why not?

Yes you can. Heck, you can walk with a Medium format camera for all I care.

Which would still be better than a compact sensor and a dozen lenses falling out of your pockets.

Ok

om-d, 12-35, 60mm macro

24-120, 900gm and 2:1 macro for funz.

Can be carried in jacket pocket.

Actually, doing such short range stuff you can ditch the EVF. Go the basic pen and shave off another 100-200gm.

I ran out of time to edit my post.

I'd also like to add that your first sentence is false, being based on a false dichotomy. It does reveal something about you though - "Your either with us, or against us" mentality, etc etc.

I'll also beef up the challenge.

OM-D + 12-35 + 35-70.

1100 grams

Meets your criteria, but now goes beyond it to 200mm in FF terms.

Or we go the other way - If the photography doesn't need f2.8, as it often doesn't

OM-D + 12-50

Covers the focal range, includes macro.

625gm.

Oh, that's right, there's no FF lenses that small and slow. That's a pity. Here, have a pancake.

 

[plevyadophy]

ljfinger wrote:

plevyadophy wrote:

ljfinger wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

How does you usually carry your gear? I take it the bag manages to hold 3 lenses and you carry the camera on a strap?

The bag holds everything with easy access since it's around my waist right in front of me and top loading.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

That bag looks interesting.

Do you have a link to the manufacturer's website or a link to a retailer?

Thanks.

http://www.thinktankphoto.com/categories/camera-beltpacks/change-up-beltpack.aspx

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Thanks

 

[neil holmes]

tko wrote:

There are two type of photographers in the world. Those that want good photos, and those that want equipment that weighs less.

So here's the challenge. Give me a compact system with a 24-105 range equivalent. Any number of lens. Of equal or better speed, which means around F2.0 to F2.8. Add up the weight and see what you get. No one will ever respond to this.

It doesn't really matter if M43rd or whatever weighs a pound less. Because you can get a superzoom that weighs a pound less than that. And so on and so on. The point is, if you let one or two pounds drive your hobby, it's no longer photography. It's backbacking.

Pentax Q with battery 200gm

kit zoom 27.5mm-83mm equiv 96gm (not a constant 2.8 but ok 2.8-4.5

tele zoom 83-249mm equiv 88gm this is a constant 2.8

throw in a 47mm equiv prime 37gm

thats a full kit for 421 gm

add a fast 50mm and you get a 280 mm fast tele prime that is pocketable (mine is 1.2...a lot heavier than most but still light, add a 85 1.2 for a 470mm 1.2 equiv...heavier again but a fraction of my 300 2.8 (and that 300 2.8 becomes a 1680mm 2.8 on the Q).



Its just fun.

 

[Ulric]

neil holmes wrote:

tko wrote:

There are two type of photographers in the world. Those that want good photos, and those that want equipment that weighs less.

So here's the challenge. Give me a compact system with a 24-105 range equivalent. Any number of lens. Of equal or better speed, which means around F2.0 to F2.8. Add up the weight and see what you get. No one will ever respond to this.

It doesn't really matter if M43rd or whatever weighs a pound less. Because you can get a superzoom that weighs a pound less than that. And so on and so on. The point is, if you let one or two pounds drive your hobby, it's no longer photography. It's backbacking.

Pentax Q with battery 200gm

kit zoom 27.5mm-83mm equiv 96gm (not a constant 2.8 but ok 2.8-4.5

tele zoom 83-249mm equiv 88gm this is a constant 2.8

throw in a 47mm equiv prime 37gm

thats a full kit for 421 gm

add a fast 50mm and you get a 280 mm fast tele prime that is pocketable (mine is 1.2...a lot heavier than most but still light, add a 85 1.2 for a 470mm 1.2 equiv...heavier again but a fraction of my 300 2.8 (and that 300 2.8 becomes a 1680mm 2.8 on the Q).

Its just fun.

I believe tko is not asking for 2.8 but 2.8 "equivalent", which is another thing entirely.

Here's another challenge. Give me a system with a range from moderate wide to moderate tele within a 710 gram budget. Oh, and it must be FF.

 

[MoreorLess]

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Continued discussion from: Is Full frame still the most versatile?

ljfinger wrote:

Not much...like I said, I use a small waist pack, and that includes a 70-200/2.8, a 24-105, a 15mm fisheye and a 35/1.4.

More than 8 lb of gear, even if held by a thin string does not describe my idea of small and light. OTOH, something like a Sony NEX-6 with 10-18mm f/4 OSS, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8 OSS and 50mm f/1.8 OSS offers a far more practical, small and light set of camera and lenses for walk around, about 2 lb. It is something that won't get in the way while stopping for a family dinner on the way either.

It’s marketing. “Pros drive it, and so should you”, is the motto.

Olliess wrote:

No, it really just says "Taurus" on the shell. It has nothing to do with any Taurus you can buy at the dealer. I don't understand what RWD has to do with it, though.

It also depends what you mean by versatility, not everyone wants a camera system that can do everything all of the time, many want a system that they can tailor more exactly to a more limated set of needs or one which they can predict those needs beforehand.

 

[moving_comfort]

I have some real tangible undeniable gear-lust for a small kit like the OM-D.

However every time I shoot one, while reviewing the images later (and after patting myself on the back for taking advantage of the smallness,) I'm left with a feeling of dissatisfaction, a feeling of going backwards.

I personally just can't do it... yet. I need better AF, for one thing, maybe a better VF, maybe more DOF control, but mostly I just need better high-ISO performance so my shutter speeds can be where I want them in low-light, my subjects sharp, crisp, and as noise-free as possible. Occasionally I need more dynamic range.

The fun gets drained and the 'versatility' dissipates when I look at the images later. The D800 has completely spoiled me when it comes to IQ, I guess.

I want to love the OM-D. Maybe the next iteration.

.

--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

 

[moving_comfort]

moving_comfort wrote:

I have some real tangible undeniable gear-lust for a small kit like the OM-D.

However every time I shoot one, while reviewing the images later (and after patting myself on the back for taking advantage of the smallness,) I'm left with a feeling of dissatisfaction, a feeling of going backwards.

I personally just can't do it... yet. I need better AF, for one thing, maybe a better VF, maybe more DOF control, but mostly I just need better high-ISO performance so my shutter speeds can be where I want them in low-light, my subjects sharp, crisp, and as noise-free as possible. Occasionally I need more dynamic range.

The fun gets drained and the 'versatility' dissipates when I look at the images later. The D800 has completely spoiled me when it comes to IQ, I guess.

I want to love the OM-D. Maybe the next iteration.

.

PS - not just the OM-D, any smaller-than-aps-c sensor body leaves me with this feeling after image review. Not trying to pick on the OM-D.

 

[AcquiredTaste]

Ulric wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Draek wrote:

You really think a Nikon D800 with a 70-200/2.8 lens will be as unnoticeable as an Olympus E-PL5 with a 45/1.8 by someone you're wishing to photograph?

You can be a LOT farther away with that D800 to get the same shot, so yes, I do.

That's an odd thing for a professional photographer to write.

No, not really. Just experience talking.