Actually you only get a cropped field of view, not more reach - hence the term crop sensor, much the same as using a crop mode with a FF camera, but I think that you saying sub 30MP is not an option has deterred people from recommending Fuji and MFT.
My Next Camera
- Thread starter raptor photo
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Actually you only get a cropped field of view, not more reach - hence the term crop sensor, much the same as using a crop mode with a FF camera, but I think that you saying sub 30MP is not an option has deterred people from recommending Fuji and MFT.
Not even the Nikon branded lenses that are made by Tamron?
John Navitsky
Well-known member
don’t get me wrong, i do like tamron and their g2 and newer lenses are good value. however, they don’t compete with the nikon e series lenses in terms of performance let alone the new s line lenses.
imo the body has a big part in enabling you to get the shot, but the glass is the big driver of the quality of the shot you get.
i get the impression the OP wants to upgrade. imo that means upgrading the glass too.
StefanSC
Well-known member
Of your list, I would vote none of them.
With all of those on that list you are making some sort of compromise that will partially defeat the purpose.
On the combos you are using the Sigma 150-600mm C, you are taking a hit in the AF speed due to the slow speed of the lens.
On the combos that don't have stacked sensors, you are loosing one of the things that makes AF work so great on mirrorless ... the ability to keep the subject properly framed).
On the combos that use adapter lenses, you are introducing multiple points of failure (warped mounts, water ingress and so on).
You need to take into account also when talking about FPS not only how many a camera can do but at what cost (a camera that does 20fps in e-shutter but has major rolling shutter is useless), how deep is the buffer, how fast does it clear that buffer (and how expensive are the cards for that body).
If you must stay in the budget, I would rather have a used D500 and a 500mm PF over any of those combos.
If you must have mirrorless in the budget, I would have an Olympus OM-1 and an used 300mm f4 with the 1.4x TC and 2x TCs over any of those combos.
And if you must have one of those combos I would have an R7 and 100-500mm or Z8 with the 150-600mm C and prepare for a lens upgrade in the near future.
If neither size, weight nor cost are issues then I would get the Z8 and save your money and wait until a Z zoom comes out.
Woody Meristem
Well-known member
The Olympus 100-400mm is a great lens, especially given it's low price. I'm currently using it on an older Olympus camera which will be replaced one of these days. I won't get the 150-400mm which is an even better lens, but also larger heavier and much more expensive for not a comparable increase in image quality.
I have a used 300f4 and both a 1.4 and 2.0 TC. That approach has certain advantages such as 50 f/s and a larger aperture but I still primarily use the 100-400 as my go to lens.
The reason is that I prefer a zoom for a walk around lens.
Well if you can buy used, I hear the Nikon D500 with the 500pf is a great combo.
raptor photo
Well-known member
Yes, for sure. The Sigma would just be my lens until I had enough for the 200-600.
raptor photo
Well-known member
Too little MP.
raptor photo
Well-known member
30MP cropped is the equivalent of around 65 MP FF. Sub 30 MP FF is half the pixels, which gives me less room for cropping when I need to.
raptor photo
Well-known member
Yes, but camera first. I am still happy with my lens, but tired of the AF and lack of speed of the D3500.
raptor photo
Well-known member
You can't have it all, that's why I'm posting this to see what compromises are worth it and what aren't. Thanks for the suggestions, although the D500 is DSLR. Are you sure the 100-400 Olympus isn't better than the 300 f/4?
raptor photo
Well-known member
It would be a good option for the present, but that costs more than the Z8 + Sigma combo, and that gives me way for room to upgrade in the future.
StefanSC
Well-known member
Depends what you value... if portability, affordability and zooming are important to you, than yes, the 100-400mm is better.
If image quality, AF speed and advance functions are important, then the 300mm f4 is better than the 100-400.
The way I shoot, I never change lenses or add TCs in the field. I do have a third OM-1 so in a fixed location I would have a 100-400 on one OM-1 and a 300F4, rarely with a MC-20 TC but whenever I am moving, I am a one camera-one lens type.
What I find is that the 100-400 is almost always the right lens.
Tom
StefanSC
Well-known member
@Tom Reynolds :
Did you ever make a breakdown on what percentage breakdown of your shots with the 100-400mm are taken at what focal length?
It's been my experience that supertele zooms often end up being used overwhelmely at the shortest and longest focal length...
Did you ever make a breakdown on what percentage breakdown of your shots with the 100-400mm are taken at what focal length?
It's been my experience that supertele zooms often end up being used overwhelmely at the shortest and longest focal length...
Woody Meristem
Well-known member
My Olympus 100-400mm is usually used at 400mm, BUT there are times when a shorter focal length is vital and there it is, right in the lens. The only prime I have my macro lens, having given up primes about 20 years ago when I went digital and got rid of all my film gear -- including five or six prime lenses..
I do not have a formal breakdown of what percentage my shots are @ 400mm (800mm effective FF). At the Alligator Farm it was about 50-50 while at a typical boardwalk walk like South Padre Island or the boardwalk @ Bosque Del Apache it was more like 80-20.
The problem with 300f4 is that it is often either too log or too short. However, for precapture (ProCapture) 50 f/s versus 25f/s makes a real difference.
I think if you use an OM-1 your kit will ultimately include a 100-400, a 300f4 and both TC's unless you can get a 150-400. I also think that if you like or want to try MACRO you will want a 90F3.5.
The problem with 300f4 is that it is often either too log or too short. However, for precapture (ProCapture) 50 f/s versus 25f/s makes a real difference.
I think if you use an OM-1 your kit will ultimately include a 100-400, a 300f4 and both TC's unless you can get a 150-400. I also think that if you like or want to try MACRO you will want a 90F3.5.
I might add that cost and weight makes an interesting difference. I am able to afford a backup OM-1 and a 100-400 lens because the total cost is dramatically less than other options.
raptor photo
Well-known member
How about the Xh2s vs Xh2? The Xh2s is 500 dollars more, and I feel like I would like the extra MP on the Xh2. Is there anything I am missing on that?
The S stands for Stacked (sensor). I tested them side by side and they are very similar, the S being a little faster and to my eye has cleaner image. The NR on the XH2 is a little too aggressive to my taste. I ended up moving out of the system, but if I had to choose I'd take the S.
While it's always nice to get the latest gear, I'm not sure it's truly necessary. If you can't get the shot with the Nikon Z7ii, it's not the camera. There are good alternatives from each manufacturer that would work. I'm simply familiar with the Nikon lineup and your existing lenses will likely be useful. Since the Z7ii is a "seasoned" body, I'd look for a refurbished or used copy which would cost around $2000-2200.
That approach leaves you plenty of budget for a Z 24-120 f/4 lens - a very solid all purpose lens. If you want something smaller, the 24-70 f/4 is an S lens that costs around $400 used. Either way - it will give you a chance to use a Z lens and learn the system.
I'd keep the Sigma 150-600. There is no great rush to upgrade, and there are certainly some options. Yes - it's not the fastest or highest quality - but it's more than adequate for most subject matter. If you really need something more, consider the Nikon 100-400 and 1.4 TC. That would give you a first rate 2 lens kit with the ability to reach longer if needed.
That approach leaves you plenty of budget for a Z 24-120 f/4 lens - a very solid all purpose lens. If you want something smaller, the 24-70 f/4 is an S lens that costs around $400 used. Either way - it will give you a chance to use a Z lens and learn the system.
I'd keep the Sigma 150-600. There is no great rush to upgrade, and there are certainly some options. Yes - it's not the fastest or highest quality - but it's more than adequate for most subject matter. If you really need something more, consider the Nikon 100-400 and 1.4 TC. That would give you a first rate 2 lens kit with the ability to reach longer if needed.
raptor photo
Well-known member
Z7ii autofocus is perfectly fine for me, I've rented it a few times and had no problem with BIF. However, the viewfinder at 10 FPS which is what I would prefer to use is atrocious. Completely unusable. The blackout at 5 FPS is pretty bad too.
arbitrage
Well-known member
My thoughts sort of mirror Stefan's earlier....all of those combos are compromises and I realize you understand that.
The only non-stacked sensor MILC I'd ever bother owning is the Canon R5. But ideally going to a stacked sensor is the goal. Otherwise I'd rather shoot a D500 or D850.
Therefore I'd buy a Z8 and upgrade the lens to the 400/4.5 or upcoming 200-600 (maybe announced tonight according to NR) as funds allow.
The only non-stacked sensor MILC I'd ever bother owning is the Canon R5. But ideally going to a stacked sensor is the goal. Otherwise I'd rather shoot a D500 or D850.
Therefore I'd buy a Z8 and upgrade the lens to the 400/4.5 or upcoming 200-600 (maybe announced tonight according to NR) as funds allow.