Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 8, 2012, 3:19 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,487
Default

Nex-7 10-18 f/4 lens...the Nex-7 and 16mm f/2.8 at f/8 is phenomenal at capturing fine details...I shot a jpeg of a landscape and the jpeg was 22MB alone not even RAW...I developed it and it was 24MB...the details are foilage and thats impressive to me....

Original:
http://acwilli.smugmug.com/Other/acw...SLc5K&lb=1&s=O

Original PP'd:
http://acwilli.smugmug.com/Other/acw...Gj6Bb&lb=1&s=O
LTZ470 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2012, 5:33 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

The NEX-7 is also a fine camera, but because of the short Flange Focal distance, few E-Mount lenses don't suffer from Vignetting, Distortion, Chromatic Aberration, and Field Curvature. And while the NEX Series of cameras can automatically compensate for Vignetting, Distortion and Chromatic Aberration, the method for compensating for Distortion decreases the sharpness of the image in the corners where the image already isn't very sharp due to Field Curvature.

The NEX-7 is a fine camera for landscape photography, but it's not well suited for architectural photography.

Plus, it's more expensive than the other two options I suggested.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 5:49 AM   #13
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

#1 by a huge margin - Sigma DP1M. Near medium format digital quality in a tiny body. As long as you're happy with a 28mm equivalent FL. The requirements you have suit this little camera perfectly. Probably with a nice high-quality lightweight carbon fibre tripod.

#2 I'd go for the Fuji X-E1. Very good lenses. No low-pass filter. The circumstances you'll be shooting in will not stress the AF system. I've no doubt the quality achievable matches a ~20Mp FF in most circumstances.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 7:39 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
#1 by a huge margin - Sigma DP1M. Near medium format digital quality in a tiny body. As long as you're happy with a 28mm equivalent FL. The requirements you have suit this little camera perfectly. Probably with a nice high-quality lightweight carbon fibre tripod.
I don't agree. While there's a lot to be said for the ability of Sigma's Foveon image sensors to more accurately record color, the DP1M's maximum resolution of 4,704 3,136 falls short of the 6,016 4,000 resolution of the Nikon D3200 or the 6,000 4,000 resolution of the Sony A65. And for umanemo's application, I think resolution trumps color accuracy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
#2 I'd go for the Fuji X-E1. Very good lenses. No low-pass filter. The circumstances you'll be shooting in will not stress the AF system. I've no doubt the quality achievable matches a ~20Mp FF in most circumstances.
Again, as good as the Fuji X-E1 might be, it's 4,896 x 3,264 maximum resolution images won't stand up to the scrutiny that umanemo seems to expect from his clients. Plus, the lenses for it suffer from a lot of corner softness and vignetting, especially the 18mm f/2, which would probably suit umanemo's application best.

While there's a lot to be said for leaving off the anti-aliasing filter to increase the sharpness of the recorded image, as both these cameras do, it doesn't actually increase the resolution of the final image. Only more megapixels will do that.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 12:45 PM   #15
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
I don't agree. While there's a lot to be said for the ability of Sigma's Foveon image sensors to more accurately record color, the DP1M's maximum resolution of 4,704 3,136 falls short of the 6,016 4,000 resolution of the Nikon D3200 or the 6,000 4,000 resolution of the Sony A65. And for umanemo's application, I think resolution trumps color accuracy.



Again, as good as the Fuji X-E1 might be, it's 4,896 x 3,264 maximum resolution images won't stand up to the scrutiny that umanemo seems to expect from his clients. Plus, the lenses for it suffer from a lot of corner softness and vignetting, especially the 18mm f/2, which would probably suit umanemo's application best.

While there's a lot to be said for leaving off the anti-aliasing filter to increase the sharpness of the recorded image, as both these cameras do, it doesn't actually increase the resolution of the final image. Only more megapixels will do that.
I've not used either of them, but I have downloaded and played with sample files. I have no hesitation in saying that the X-E1 matches my 5D2 most of the time.

As to the Sigma, well Michael Reichmann at Lula says:

Quote:
I'll simply make one summary statement. It is my opinion that the Sigma DP2M, for its part, provides the highest image resolution of any camera / lens combination than costs less than a $2,000 – $3,000 dollars, and it seriously challenges the IQ of cameras like the Nikon D800e and even medium format backs in prints up to about 20X30
As you don't own a D800e or MFDB or a Sigma DP1M/DP2M I'll take his word over yours.

I don't think your suggestion of the new Nikon is a bad one though.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 3:11 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

LensRentals did a quick comparison of the 36MP Nikon D800 and D800E, the difference between them being the absence of the anti-aliasing filter in the D800E, using the Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro Planar. [ See http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012...lens-selection ] (It must be fun to own a lens rental company.) The comparison showed an increase of 10%-15% in the Imatest MTF50 numbers. That's nice.

Both of the cameras you suggested have 15MP sensors, and at the estimated increase in sharpness that was found by removing the anti-aliasing filter from the D800, you still won't get from a 15MP sensor what a 24MP sensor will give you. Then there's the increased potential for aliasing. At the very least, even if there was a significant benefit, the upsampling algorithms will dilute it when printing.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2012, 3:15 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Then, of course, there's the significant limitation on the optics when using a short flange focal distance with a large image sensor.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 3:09 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3
Default

The D3200/17-50 combo was something I never swayed wide enough to consider. I have had my head in this decision since exactly a year ago and I have jumped from one pinnacle to another like Super Mario when ever some marketing firm mentions another better option "Just right around the corner" I.E. In this progression; Sony Nex, Fuji XP1, Oly Om-D... then comes in the X-E1!

I am swirling in a decision quagmire and I think it shows. But here I have found some resolve which I have not felt in some time. The Nikon suggestion is well founded, The X-E1 has credentials and the Foveon's are a real head turner for my application. With regard to Sigma they just tunnel to the heart of my style. I work hard for my photo quality. My first G5 was always set on M. I did everything except focus. The LX2 was the same. When I got it back from my wife (It was "Hers") I would immediately turn the dial to M. I know what it takes to squeek a sharp well manufactured photo out of a lower cost platform. (with the tiny 1/1.7 & 1/2.3" sensors) But I have found my limitations with these and have now reason to step into the arena with a "real sized" sensor system.

Interesting evolution though. Here I spend 12 months doing the two step with just about every reviewer out there and in one post I get an answer that cut through all of the spec's and raves.

That's what I came here for and I greatly appreciate everyones input.

Now... D3200 vs. X-E1 vs. DP1M? Anyone got anything else to throw in the ring?
umanemo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2012, 3:40 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

I would add the Sony A65. It will stabilize the unstabilized Tamron while the Nikon will not. And, just to be clear, get the UNSTABILIZED Tamron 17-50 for either the Nikon or the Sony.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 2:44 AM   #20
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Despite TCav's conviction that all pixels are equal I don't think he's correct.

Sigma like to trumpet their new sensor as 45Mp, which TCav has nicely sidestepped by quoting the actual file resolution. Unbiased commentators tend to converge around a figure which is 2x the file resolution but short of the 3x that Sigma claim.

This puts the new Foveon sensors at an equivalent of approximately a 30Mp Bayer sensor at ISO 100-400. After that things tend to fall apart for the Foveon.

Likewise the X-trans CFA is not Bayer based, so direct comparisons with Bayer Mp counts are misleading. I don't (yet) own an X-trans sensor camera, but my tests show that it is probably better than 5D2 sensor and lenses at around ISO800, at low ISO the Canon is better and at very high ISO it may have a slight edge too, but I definitely think the 400-3200 range is clearly in favour of the X-trans v my 22Mp 5D2. This is a marginal effect, as both are really "good enough" for my usual printing, but test prints do show a side-by-side difference that can be seen.

I would suggest though that exacting technique and use of a tripod might be more significant than the difference between these excellent cameras. We have moved well past the point where most cameras are better than their operators.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:01 AM.