Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: PeterAit on June 29, 2011, 11:09:58 am

Title: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: PeterAit on June 29, 2011, 11:09:58 am
I have spent a small fortune on a Nikon D700 and a half-dozen lenses. It takes fantastic photos, but I find it is staying in the closet more and more. Why? Because I am getting the same quality results from my Panasonic G2. With 4 lenses. I cover the 35mm equiv range of 14 to 600 mm in a package that's 1/3 the weight and 1/2 the volume of the Nikon gear - and probably 1/4 the cost! Plus, 20% more pixels on the G2 (and 60% more when I get a G3).

Image quality? For the most part, I cannot see a difference. In my tests I have seen certain situations where the Nikon has a subtle advantage, but this is "pixel-peeper" stuff and is irrelevant to what I want to do with photography. With the G2 I have gotten wonderful photos that I would not have gotten at all with the Nikon because I didn't want to haul its cinder-block weight around with me.

I'll be interested to hear your comments.

Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: uaiomex on June 29, 2011, 11:29:32 am
When people say "my customers won't notice", me and some others would usually reply " but you do". Now, in this case since even you won't notice, I'd say you should sell the Nikon system.
Nobody said you need a dslr system to do anything in photography. It's entirely up to you and what you can perceive. I understand none of your customers notice either.
Eduardo


I have spent a small fortune on a Nikon D700 and a half-dozen lenses. It takes fantastic photos, but I find it is staying in the closet more and more. Why? Because I am getting the same quality results from my Panasonic G2. With 4 lenses. I cover the 35mm equiv range of 14 to 600 mm in a package that's 1/3 the weight and 1/2 the volume of the Nikon gear - and probably 1/4 the cost! Plus, 20% more pixels on the G2 (and 60% more when I get a G3).

Image quality? For the most part, I cannot see a difference. In my tests I have seen certain situations where the Nikon has a subtle advantage, but this is "pixel-peeper" stuff and is irrelevant to what I want to do with photography. With the G2 I have gotten wonderful photos that I would not have gotten at all with the Nikon because I didn't want to haul its cinder-block weight around with me.

I'll be interested to hear your comments.


Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: francois on June 29, 2011, 11:36:05 am
I'm with Eduardo. If your customers don't see the difference between the G2 and your D700 and you only notice small differences then why bother with a heavier, more costly package? Sell your D700 and lenses when the system still has a good value.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: Jim Pascoe on June 29, 2011, 11:52:08 am
I didn't see anywhere that Peter mentioned 'customers'.  In any case I have to agree that if you can't see any difference then it is madness to lug around the Nikon gear.  I have the GH2 and several lenses and I have to say the picture quality is excellent and it is definitely the camera I would take on a trip or holiday and have used for a few paying assignments too.

However...  We also use Canon 1 series cameras plus both the Mk1 and Mk2 5D cameras with good lenses and I have to say that there really is no comparison for a lot of the work we do, which is often in low light.  In fact it would be like going back to the 10D in terms of quality.  Now don't get me wrong, I have on occasions got pictures out of the GH2 (and G1 for that matter) which are very much like those out of the Canon cameras - but just not consistently.

So it all depends on what you shoot and whether the weight of your old system is too much of a pain.  Also worth remembering the role of the lenses.  The GH2 with the 20mm prime lens is much better than say a 5D with a mediocre zoom lens.  But put a 50mm f2 Zeiss on the 5D and you are in a better league.  But as I say, if you cant see the difference, or the difference is not material to you then go with the Panasonic full time.  A camera in the hand is worth three in the cupboard!

Jim
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: francois on June 29, 2011, 11:59:37 am
I didn't see anywhere that Peter mentioned 'customers'. 

Correct... I read Peter's post and merged it with Eduardo's reply. I must be tired, better go to bed!
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: uaiomex on June 29, 2011, 01:51:05 pm
I may be tired too. I just assumed customers without even thinking twice. Since this a photo comunity and many of us think in terms of customers, I think everybody will survive. :)
Eduardo

Correct... I read Peter's post and merged it with Eduardo's reply. I must be tired, better go to bed!
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: Lisa Nikodym on June 29, 2011, 04:52:41 pm
Peter, I have both a Nikon D300, which I regularly use, and a Panasonic GH1, which I almost never use.  Why?  Because in situations with moderately high dynamic range (which happen a lot for me), I find that when I expose for the highlights (usually bright skies), the rest of the image is considerably darker using the GH1 than using the D300.  (I presume this is because the GH1's smaller sensor has less dynamic range.)  Does this match your experience?  I know I can bring up the shadows in the processing of the raw file, but the GH1 ends up noisier, needing a lot more tweaking, and just not looking as good to me.  I'd be interested in hearing your experience with this...

Lisa
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: feppe on June 29, 2011, 05:00:18 pm
FWIW I sold my entire APS-C kit in May, a year after I bought an E-PL1 and was blown away with the image quality and (lack of) bulk and weight. There are very exciting prime lenses coming out from several manufacturers, and Olympus is releasing three new MFT cameras on Thursday.

As to Lisa's question on DR, I'm from slide shooting background (still do), so I'm not too concerned about it. But yeah, MFT sensors have less DR than bigger sensors. You either must live with it, adjust your shooting, or do HDR or digital blending when feasible.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: kers on June 29, 2011, 05:02:11 pm
I have a Nikon d3x- that is a lot of weight but it has 24mp and a good dynamic range so i choose that or i go to back to my iPhone if i want to be cameraless (careless, weightless)

That is my choice- but in your case if you have a g2 and 4 lenses I guess you have already chosen in favour of the g2.
I guess It all depends on what is needed for you personally to make the pictures you like.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: pegelli on June 30, 2011, 01:09:34 am
One factor not yet mentioned is that with larger sensors it's easier to achieve small dof.
However I don't know how important that is to your photography style.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: marcmccalmont on June 30, 2011, 01:34:27 am
I'm using my 5DII much less now that I have my pentax K5
A K5 and a IQ 180 would work for me, other than all the Canon lenses that I have
Just hoping the 5DIII has image quality and DR is better than the K5
Marc
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: stamper on June 30, 2011, 03:06:55 am
I have a d700 plus a d300 with over a dozen lenses. A while back I bought the Canon g12 as a small alternative. The two systems complement each other - imo - rather than compete with each other. You can even take the DSLR, and a long or wide lens, along with the g12. There are enough differences between the two systems to justify not selling the DSLRS. The handling is obviously different and you enjoy using one or the other on separate occasions. There is of course the "snob" value of using the DSLR in public rather than the g12. ;) ;D
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on June 30, 2011, 04:29:11 am
Peter,

It seems to me that you have already reached the answers that you are looking for here. IMO, the current image quality from 4/3 or APSC sensor sized cameras is capable of satisfying a lot of photographers. Certainly, resolution is more than enough for the majority of us who do not print wall sized photos, then the questions remaining regard things like dynamic range and artistic considerations like depth of field, and so on.

I do relate to your experience, as I have gone through a similar process in tha last couple of years. I have shot slide film with EOS cameras for 20 years, then I have bought a 5DMKII. Wonderful camera, that I have complemented with a small micro 4/3 system. I have tested the GH2 for a few months, but I quite never "clicked" with the camera. At the same time, the Pentx K5 was released. I always had a soft spot for Pentax and its ethos with commitment to fine prime Limited lenses. Then I have seriously considered what my future requirements would be, and opted for the K5. I simply could not justify to lug around a heavy EOS system (mind you, the lenses were heavy, not the 5DMKII itself).

These days, I can carry a couple of K5s and 3 Limited prime lenses in a small bag, the entire day. I am still learning this Pentax system, but the Limiteds are wonderful lenses, and the K5 gives superb results. To me, it is the perfect solution, and a very good compromise between a micro 4/3 sensor and a full frame sensor.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: PeterAit on June 30, 2011, 09:37:02 am
Peter, I have both a Nikon D300, which I regularly use, and a Panasonic GH1, which I almost never use.  Why?  Because in situations with moderately high dynamic range (which happen a lot for me), I find that when I expose for the highlights (usually bright skies), the rest of the image is considerably darker using the GH1 than using the D300.  (I presume this is because the GH1's smaller sensor has less dynamic range.)  Does this match your experience?  I know I can bring up the shadows in the processing of the raw file, but the GH1 ends up noisier, needing a lot more tweaking, and just not looking as good to me.  I'd be interested in hearing your experience with this...

Lisa


I have not noticed this problem, but then again I have not specifically looked for it. Was there a sensor improvement between the GH1 and G2 that might have made a difference?

If you're interested, go to my photo gallery (below) and look at the Alaska portfolio. These are all G2 photos.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: PeterAit on June 30, 2011, 09:37:57 am
Correct... I read Peter's post and merged it with Eduardo's reply. I must be tired, better go to bed!

Nope, no customers - or darned few!
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: PeterAit on June 30, 2011, 10:10:05 am
I have a d700 plus a d300 with over a dozen lenses. A while back I bought the Canon g12 as a small alternative. The two systems complement each other - imo - rather than compete with each other. You can even take the DSLR, and a long or wide lens, along with the g12. There are enough differences between the two systems to justify not selling the DSLRS. The handling is obviously different and you enjoy using one or the other on separate occasions. There is of course the "snob" value of using the DSLR in public rather than the g12. ;) ;D

I have a Canon G11 - for when the Panasonic outfit is too bulky!

As for "snob appeal, I took the Panasonic and 2 lenses on an Alaska photo cruise last summer - the camera was fairly new to the market at the time. It turns out that I was the center of attention, with all the full-frame DSLR luggers standing around oohing and aahing over my gear!
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: Tim Gray on June 30, 2011, 10:23:50 am
I'm a Canon 1DS 3 user and GH2 with lenses from 7-300mm (14-600 35mm equivalent) range plus the .95 Nokton and the 45mm macro.  The 45mm rivals the sharpness of my sharpest Canon lens - the 300 2.8 (apples and oranges, yes, but from a sharpness perspective it is equivalent).  In prints up to 17x25 which is the largest I print (cropping aside) I can't see the difference.  Perhaps a smidge less dynamic range but not enough as to get too stressed in PP.

There are still 2 things missing from Panasonic from my perspective: first is a body with a more professional build - weather sealing and a more robust feel, and second is faster long lenses.  There are still situations where my 70-200 2.8 or even 300 2.8 are what's required, and there is no Panasonic equivalent.  Arguably high ISO is "missing", but that's not a "deal killer" for me.

The GH2 will be my backup to a 2 week trip to Norway and 10 day cruise around Svalbard/Spitsbergen last 2 weeks of July.  I'm also going to bring my 2 tripods - the gitzo and Arca Swiss cube and a featherweight Benro TRCB069 (and also an infrared 7d).  Truth is I'm not really looking at the GH2 as a back up, but more of the always with me longer lens.  I was on Michael's last Antarctic trip and the folks who got the (somewhat) decent whale shots were the ones who ate drank and slept with their camera and long canon lens (typically the 300 2.8 ) at their sides.  The GH2 and 100-300 is light enough that it will always be at hand for the polar bear shots I'm hoping for.

As to whether the 1DS4 or however it's branded is interesting or not will depend on what it actually ends up being :)

Finally, as an aside, I have an ongoing battle with dust in the Canon and have been using the Gh2 for 6 months with no issue of dust whatsoever.  It may be that the anti dust thing is more effective, but my theory is that all the moving parts in the Canon act as a dust factory and all the sensor vibration in the world is only of marginal help.

Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: feppe on June 30, 2011, 12:02:57 pm
As for "snob appeal, I took the Panasonic and 2 lenses on an Alaska photo cruise last summer - the camera was fairly new to the market at the time. It turns out that I was the center of attention, with all the full-frame DSLR luggers standing around oohing and aahing over my gear!

I also get much more interest regarding my Oly E-PL1 and lenses than I ever got for my dull Canon gear. I think it's because pretty much anyone can see themselves using such a compact package, but any APS-C or larger DLSR would require one to be serious about photography.

It's also not at all intimidating when taking pictures of people, which seems to even help in the studio - no more "that's a huge lens, my skin will look awful" -complaints.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: Ken Bennett on June 30, 2011, 02:37:34 pm
As for "snob appeal, I took the Panasonic and 2 lenses on an Alaska photo cruise last summer - the camera was fairly new to the market at the time. It turns out that I was the center of attention, with all the full-frame DSLR luggers standing around oohing and aahing over my gear!


I just got back from a conference where all the other photographers were carrying big DSLRs and lenses, and I had my GF1, G1, and a handful of lenses. Everyone wanted to play with them, and several said they were going out to buy one.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on June 30, 2011, 03:08:59 pm
Hi,

I have both full frame (Sony Alpha 900) and APS-C (Sony Alpha 700 and 55 SLT), in my view the Alpha 900 has much better image quality at base ISO. Alpha 55SLT which has a recent Sony sensor is pretty good at higher ISOs.

In general I would expect larger sensors to benefit in resolution. Nikon doesn't have an affordable 20 MP+ full frame camera. Little doubt that the D3X is much better at base ISO than D3s or D700, but D3S and D700 excel at high ISOs.

Raw converters matter a lot, a good raw-converter may improve the quality of existing images quite a lot. Check this:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/32-new-raw-processing-pipeline-in-lightroom-3-beta-2

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: bobtowery on June 30, 2011, 04:21:06 pm
I think if you are getting results you are happy with and the handling experience works for you, why not use the lighter/smaller/cheaper gear?

I had a Canon 1DIII since its release, then picked up a lightly used 5DII, mainly for one trip. Well, I fell in love with the IQ and the smaller form factor pretty quickly. The 1DIII started getting left behind.. I finally sold it.

I have a bag (or two) of Canon L primes and feel like I can shoot nearly anything I want, and the 5DII IQ is great for my purposes. But when I have to haul that gear...

Enter the GH2. Got mine in January. Maybe I should do a trip like Michael where this is my only camera for a couple of months. It certainly performs well and the form factor is great. What bothers me though is the handling. Maybe it is 10+ years with Canon digital bodies? None of the controls feel really right to me. Changing ISO is hard to do while looking through the viewfinder (maybe more practice). I don't really like having to push in on the main dial for its secondary function. Battery life is atrocious - no chimping. ISO past 800 is not usable for me.

I'm mainly using two zooms, the 14-140 and the 100-300.

So I have been thinking... the GH2 is great for casual stuff. But like this fall I'll be going to San Miguel. I could go with the GH2 and the two zooms. Well, why not the same thing with the Canon? Get off my "prime high horse." Take the 24-70 and newly acquired 70-300mm, that's it. This is "carryable" and "carry-on-able." And I have a much more capable camera and better lenses.  Weight is more, but is manageable. I don't have the (effective) 600mm reach of the 100-300, but I can live with that.

Interesting conundrum and I'm glad to have the choices...

(http://bobtowery.typepad.com/.a/6a010536dc2e27970c0147e3e77816970b-800wi)

It's a lot easier to shoot the GH2 out of airliner windows I must confess though...

Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: feppe on June 30, 2011, 06:48:11 pm
Enter the GH2. Got mine in January. Maybe I should do a trip like Michael where this is my only camera for a couple of months. It certainly performs well and the form factor is great. What bothers me though is the handling. Maybe it is 10+ years with Canon digital bodies? None of the controls feel really right to me. Changing ISO is hard to do while looking through the viewfinder (maybe more practice). I don't really like having to push in on the main dial for its secondary function. Battery life is atrocious - no chimping. ISO past 800 is not usable for me.

UI is a common complaint with Panasonic MFT cameras. I'd recommend checking out E-Px cameras from Olympus, they are quite good in that regard. For example, I believe the new E-P3 has 4 programmable buttons.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: uaiomex on June 30, 2011, 07:12:54 pm
And for sneaking in between zoo cage bars but other than that, nothing beats a true dslr, either aps or FF. Anything else is a compromise or a convenience.
Eduardo


It's a lot easier to shoot the GH2 out of airliner windows I must confess though...


Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: Tim Gray on June 30, 2011, 09:17:21 pm
Regardless of whether its FF, APS, P&S, MFT, LF, MF or Smart/cell Phone they all give up something to get something else.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: aaykay on June 30, 2011, 10:40:34 pm
I have a Sony A900 (FF 24.6MP) and an APS-C (A55).  The A55 was primarily used for video (and stills too) but I just bought a Sony Cybershot model, DSC-HX-100V (reviewed by Michael), which can shoot 1080 60P and provide a 27mm-810mm range, and thus thinking of getting rid of the A55.  The downside is that the cybershot does not shoot RAW, which is definitely a big minus for me.

I find that when it comes to mission critical stuff (I am not a professional), I always gravitate to the A900 (and not the A55) and for the walkaround stuff and video, the HX-100V will get the job done, even though being a small sensor product, it is not going to win any rave reviews for image quality in challenging light.

Sure, I don't enjoy carrying all of that weight when shooting with the A900 (the big f/2.8 zooms and the large aperture primes) etc., but the luscious images that the A900 + 135/1.8 spits out is just unbeatable in 35mm land.  There are rumors that a high resolution SLT Full-frame is on the way in 2012, and when that appears, my A900 will take up backup duties.

Of course as a walkaround, I do enjoy shooting with just the A900 and the Minolta 35mm f/2 (240gms or so) or even the 50/1.4 but that is of course a different discussion.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on July 01, 2011, 12:41:17 am
Hi,

The main reason I went with the A55 was that I needed LiveView for long telephoto work where AF is not always optimal. With LiveView I can nail focus exactly even with 400/4.5 and 2X extender.

That said I feel that the A55 and a 16-80 zoom works well as a walk around camera, add 70-300 and it can shoot almost anything. The A900 is more solid has much better UI and much better image quality at low ISO. Much prefer the A900 for serious work specially on a tripod.

I guess that it's nice to have the best camera one can afford, image quality is probably a bit related to price. If a camera sells at a high price it must probably have some benefits for justifying that price. On the other hand, a heavy camera in the wardrobe doesn't take pictures like a light one you have in your pocket.

Best regards
Erik



I have a Sony A900 (FF 24.6MP) and an APS-C (A55).  The A55 was primarily used for video (and stills too) but I just bought a Sony Cybershot model, DSC-HX-100V (reviewed by Michael), which can shoot 1080 60P and provide a 27mm-810mm range, and thus thinking of getting rid of the A55.  The downside is that the cybershot does not shoot RAW, which is definitely a big minus for me.

I find that when it comes to mission critical stuff (I am not a professional), I always gravitate to the A900 (and not the A55) and for the walkaround stuff and video, the HX-100V will get the job done, even though being a small sensor product, it is not going to win any rave reviews for image quality in challenging light.

Sure, I don't enjoy carrying all of that weight when shooting with the A900 (the big f/2.8 zooms and the large aperture primes) etc., but the luscious images that the A900 + 135/1.8 spits out is just unbeatable in 35mm land.  There are rumors that a high resolution SLT Full-frame is on the way in 2012, and when that appears, my A900 will take up backup duties.

Of course as a walkaround, I do enjoy shooting with just the A900 and the Minolta 35mm f/2 (240gms or so) or even the 50/1.4 but that is of course a different discussion.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: John Camp on July 01, 2011, 12:57:15 am
I've slowly worked my way down from a full-frame/APS-C system (Nikon D3 and D300) to a Pentax K5 and now to a Panasonic. The Nikons and K5 give better image quality and have more diverse systems, but the (almost literal) backbreaker for me was carrying the Nikons and the three f2.8 zooms and ancillary equipment in Iraq a couple of years ago: the weight was too much to deal with (although I'm older, in my 60s, so YMMV.) As it turned out, I never really needed the D3's low light capability as much as I thought I would, and for most of those shots, a Panasonic would have been okay, if not as good. You can wring a pretty damn good photo out of ISO 3200 with a GH2.

The K5 would have been fine for Iraq, even though it's not nearly as armored at the D3. I documented Middle Eastern archaeological digs with film N90s, in preference to F5s, because it was so damn hot that I just didn't want to carry the bigger cameras. It took three seasons to wreck the N90s, and we didn't treat them gently. I think the K5 would perform at least as well...in other words, I think the so-called "pro-build" of the big Nikon and Canons may be a little overdone. (But maybe not, depending on how much of a battering your cameras take. In Iraq, I was either flying or on military bases, and wasn't throwing my equipment around so much.) The K5 is not a hell of a lot larger than a GH2, though it is a bit larger. The problem is, the lenses are larger, except for the pancakes. Unfortunately, Pentaxes' pancakes don't make a full system, and the K5 does not have a flexible LCD, which I consider invaluable. But, it is a partial solution to the size/weight problem, and the high ISO quality is excellent.

The thing about the Panasonics is that you can carry a full line of lenses and three bodies in a briefcase-sized bag, and the GH's do have flexible LCDs. I use quite a small Kata backpack as my bag, and you can get it into the overhead even on small regional jets. I think the key thing about the Panasonics (and Olympuses) is simply size. You may not get quite the image quality of the APS-C and FF bodies, but for most purposes, it's fine. Most of the losses are at the margins, in low-light use or perhaps DR. If most of your shooting is in no worse than "poor" conditions, you should be okay; it's in "bad" conditions where you may have a problem. But again, for making the choice of an m4/3 camera, size is the key, not IQ. If the IQ is good enough for you, then the small size can be a great benefit. I used to work for newspapers as a reporter, and took occasional photographs for the paper, and I'd say that all of the m4/3 cameras would easily meet the requirements of newspaper and "typical" magazine shooting, except perhaps in sports, and the size/weight aspect would be a huge benefit.

If you really need maximum IQ in an armored body, well...you're gonna have to get a mule.

Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: Rob C on July 01, 2011, 03:56:29 am
If one thing comes out of all this, loudly and clearly, it's that nobody has ever found an ideal camera system.

Trade-offs are all that we seem capable of finding; compromise upon compromise. But then, how can we reasonably expect otherwise? That's life; unless we all, magically, discover we are doing the same limited types of photographic tasks, there never will be a common response and, therefore, popular resolution to the conundrum.

My particular solution has changed radically from the attitude I had to live with as a working photographer: far from carrying everything (John's mule would have been a great accessory) these days, I have resolved to carry a single body and lens. Period. I decide before I leave the house that I am going to do this, that or the other. And I generally stick with that decision; I leave myself no alternative, thank goodness.

Is that putting a limit on what I can then do? Yes, but even more so, no! I can forget the rest and concentrate on the achievable. And as a huge benefit, changing lenses in the office results in no dust (just as long as I don't breathe onto the rubbish all over the desks!).

Rob C
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: aaykay on July 01, 2011, 06:05:00 am
Hi,

The main reason I went with the A55 was that I needed LiveView for long telephoto work where AF is not always optimal. With LiveView I can nail focus exactly even with 400/4.5 and 2X extender.

Agree.  I use the liveview of the A55 a lot.  In fact, that is one of the situations where I believe Sony badly miscalculated, when they released the A900, without liveview.  Bad misjudgement.  The sensor itself is clearly liveview capable, as evidenced by liveview available in the D3X.

Quote
That said I feel that the A55 and a 16-80 zoom works well as a walk around camera, add 70-300 and it can shoot almost anything. The A900 is more solid has much better UI and much better image quality at low ISO. Much prefer the A900 for serious work specially on a tripod.

Agreed on both points.  I use the 16-80ZA and the 70-300G as a one-two punch, with the A55.  And the A900 for serious stuff on Tripod for seriously superior image quality, especially when shot RAW.  When equipped with the Zeiss 135/1.8 (the 135/1.8 provides a far bigger punch than even my 85/1.4ZA, on the A900), the A900 provides images that simply cannot be beaten, short of medium format (several of my pictures, printed out on 24x36" canvas, occupy pride of place on several walls, when shot with the A900/135-1.8 combo).

Quote
I guess that it's nice to have the best camera one can afford, image quality is probably a bit related to price. If a camera sells at a high price it must probably have some benefits for justifying that price. On the other hand, a heavy camera in the wardrobe doesn't take pictures like a light one you have in your pocket.

Agreed and I believe I can understand why somebody might have an issue with the images from a 12MP FF and try to equate those with the images from other cameras with a decently sized sensor ( and similar resolution) and wondering why carry all of that gear.  At the end of the day, after carrying all of that weight, all you are getting are 12MP images, great though they may be.  And especially in well lit situations (where the FAR superior low-light abilities of the D3 sensor are not coming into play), the weight is hard to justify over newer products that are far smaller/lighter.

My A900 (similar to the Nikon D3X from a sensor resolution perspective) thankfully provides me superb 24.6MP resolution and for my type of shooting, I never crop and utilize every bit of that 24.6MP resolution.  I am a happy camper with the A900.  And I believe Sony rightfully decided on a 24.6MP for their FF sensor than coming out with a lower resolution sensor.    I personally wanted (at the time of the A900's release) a lower resolution FF sensor (like say 16MP or so) than the 24.6MP that the A900 came out with, but in hindsight, I am thoroughly happy that they decided on a high resolution sensor than a lower resolution sensor for their FF products.

Also, when the rumored Sony FF with the 40MP FF sensor appears in 2012, thankfully with a fully articulating screen and full-time liveview, I will immediately add that to my kitty. I will consider that as a worthwhile upgrade over the A900, which itself will serve duty as a backup. A 2012 Sony FF EXMOR sensor should have all of their latest sensor advances and should be second to none from a performance standpoint....we'll see.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: tomrock on July 01, 2011, 09:41:23 am
If one thing comes out of all this, loudly and clearly, it's that nobody has ever found an ideal camera system.

Trade-offs are all that we seem capable of finding; compromise upon compromise. ...
Rob C

I agree. Everything in photography is a compromise. All set up for a shot? Want more depth of field? You have to give up shutter speed (or ISO).

EVERYTHING in photography is a compromise.

I've been shooting MFT for about a year. I didn't buy it to do jobs, but rather because my first grandson was born a year ago. I've also taken it on vacation a couple of times.

I'm amazed at these little cameras. But you do have to compromise :-)
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: Jon Maxim on July 01, 2011, 11:55:57 am
To share my experience:

Started with Nikon D40 upgraded to D300s plus 4 of the "better" Nikon lenses. Quite happy but not quite good enough IQ for my taste. Tried D700 but could not see enough IQ difference to switch. Bought G11 - hated the IQ loved size and handling. Bought superzoom P&S from Nikon and Leica and returned them. Realized that I really hate poor IQ. If I want portability and IQ not an issue - cell phone is enough. Then I met the GH2... love at first sight! Quickly bought it and another lens. Soon after tried the Pentax 645D. Love at first sight again! (or would that be second sight?) Bought it too. I cannot believe what a great combo this is. The 645D has significantly better IQ in virtually all respects than a DX or FX DSLR. When I want the best quality I use it. However, the GH2 is amazingly close IQ considering the vast difference in size, sensor and price. I use both regularly.

Jon
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: PeterAit on July 03, 2011, 04:16:24 pm
I appreciate all the replies and the interesting discussion. I spent some time doing tests to compare the D700 and the G2. These are hardly professional tests, but they serve me well.

My conclusion is that the 2 systems are pretty much equivalent in sharpness. This is of course with my lens selection. Of most importance is that I have never found the sharpness of G2 photos to limit my printmaking (up to 30 x 16). The G2 has a sharpness "advantage" with its image stabilization system. I am taking very sharp handheld photos with the G2 at 600 mm equiv!

Noise is where the D700 is the clear winner, in fact a real champ. Even as low as ISO 400 the noise on the G2 is quite visible.

So, I am keeping both cameras, selling a couple of Nikon lenses I rarely use, anad getting on with it.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: EgillBjarki on July 05, 2011, 03:55:29 am
Like many have pointed out, it depends on what you plan on using it for. If you do not miss the big sensor DOF or the collection of lenses from your FF 35mm system, the noise control and resolution (in the case of Canon), then I'm sure you will be better off with a G2/G3.

I made a simular move not so long ago. I had a Hasselblad H2 with a Phase One P30+ that I bought in 2007, I traded the bigger sensor, more resolution system in for a Canon EOS 5D Mark II. I was using my "backup" (5D Mark II) much more often than I was my medium format camera, it was smaller quicker and very close in resolution. I simply could not justify keeping my Hasselblad if I was not using it.

I also think that we are very close to diffraction, the physical limit of the lenses. I noticed with my Hasselblad and P30+ back that after f/11 the images started getting blurry, a little on f/16 and not useable on f/22 in my mind. If this is not just my lenses, it to me seams that to utilize the new backs to their full potential, photographers are left with only a few apertures who can handle the resolution.

I recommend that you keep both systems for a while, shoot mainly with the G2/G3 and if you don't miss your FF 35mm, sell it.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on July 06, 2011, 12:35:09 am
Hi,

Good points. Stopping down beyond f/8 mean loosing resolution and at f/22 you essentially reduce a 24 MP camera tp 6MP. Good news is that diffraction is relatively benign for sharpening. No, you cannot resolve what is not there but you can make what remain more decent. Smaller sensors may start loosing to diffraction already at f/8.

A larger sensor will mostly have less noise at nominal ISO, as it can collect more photons.

MFT (Micro Four Thirds) systems are designed around a small sensor without reflex viewing. They are optimized for a small sensor. With DSLRs there are few top class lenses actually designed for APS-C sensors. MFT makes a lot of sense to me.

Best regards
Erik


Like many have pointed out, it depends on what you plan on using it for. If you do not miss the big sensor DOF or the collection of lenses from your FF 35mm system, the noise control and resolution (in the case of Canon), then I'm sure you will be better off with a G2/G3.

I made a simular move not so long ago. I had a Hasselblad H2 with a Phase One P30+ that I bought in 2007, I traded the bigger sensor, more resolution system in for a Canon EOS 5D Mark II. I was using my "backup" (5D Mark II) much more often than I was my medium format camera, it was smaller quicker and very close in resolution. I simply could not justify keeping my Hasselblad if I was not using it.

I also think that we are very close to diffraction, the physical limit of the lenses. I noticed with my Hasselblad and P30+ back that after f/11 the images started getting blurry, a little on f/16 and not useable on f/22 in my mind. If this is not just my lenses, it to me seams that to utilize the new backs to their full potential, photographers are left with only a few apertures who can handle the resolution.

I recommend that you keep both systems for a while, shoot mainly with the G2/G3 and if you don't miss your FF 35mm, sell it.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: eleanorbrown on July 06, 2011, 11:41:20 am
Tim there was someone on my recent Svalbard trip with the GH2 and he got great shots with it and was very pleased. Eleanor
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: bluekorn on July 06, 2011, 12:13:02 pm
I have very much appreciated this discussion. I am one of those who has tired of the weight. I sold my D300 and lenses a couple of months back in anticipation of purchasing the GH2. Where are they? How does one track down this beloved little Lumix? Any ideas? Thank you.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: Pelao on July 06, 2011, 01:29:42 pm
UI is a common complaint with Panasonic MFT cameras. I'd recommend checking out E-Px cameras from Olympus, they are quite good in that regard. For example, I believe the new E-P3 has 4 programmable buttons.

I beg to differ. I have owned both, and much prefer the panasonic UI. In terms of controls, menus and ability to configure fine details (such as where to place the live histogram on your screen) Panasonic is more flexible and thorough for my purposes. The latest E-P3 has more programmable buttons than, say a G3 - but some are restricted, and it has no dedicated ISO button.

UI is a very personal thing. I advise try before buying and beware of absolute statements.

Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: eleanorbrown on July 06, 2011, 01:45:11 pm
Do a google search.  My husband is getting one...it arrives tomorrow.  He found some..new with US warranty... in stock at ajrichard.com. Eleanor

I have very much appreciated this discussion. I am one of those who has tired of the weight. I sold my D300 and lenses a couple of months back in anticipation of purchasing the GH2. Where are they? How does one track down this beloved little Lumix? Any ideas? Thank you.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: bluekorn on July 06, 2011, 02:39:57 pm
Eleanor,
I truly appreciate your response. I googled ajrichard.com and found a lot of posts questioning their "reliability". I do hope that your husband has a good experience in dealing with them.
Peter
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: leuallen on July 06, 2011, 02:55:06 pm
Unique Photo shows the gh2 w/14-42 in stock, all others out of stock. I'd wait for the 14-140mm lens. I got it with the body because it was all I could find and I wanted the body. Did not expect to like it and I have plenty of other lenses. Now, it almost never leaves the camera. Love it.

You might check with them as they seem to have stock when others don't - it comes and goes.

Larry
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: eleanorbrown on July 06, 2011, 03:27:20 pm
hmmm, I hope so too! eleanor

Eleanor,
I truly appreciate your response. I googled ajrichard.com and found a lot of posts questioning their "reliability". I do hope that your husband has a good experience in dealing with them.
Peter
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: bluekorn on July 06, 2011, 04:17:20 pm
leuallen,

Thanks for the heads up to Unique Photo. I found and purchased a body only in black. Much appreciated. And Eleanor, I checked your website. Very lovely photos. I'll enjoy purusing the whole site in time to come.

Peter
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: feppe on July 06, 2011, 04:30:38 pm
UI is a very personal thing. I advise try before buying and beware of absolute statements.

I agree, but I didn't give any "absolute statements" and merely urged to check out Oly offerings if Panny UI is not suitable.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: Tim Gray on July 06, 2011, 06:00:43 pm
Thanks - I leave for Oslo on the 19th July - I'll post a new thread when I'm back and have a few images...  A bit strange, but psychologically I'm treating my 1ds3 as my backup :)

Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: eleanorbrown on July 06, 2011, 06:33:53 pm
Thanks Peter.  BTW, I also did a google search for reviews on the ajrichard.com company and found some really bad reviews...so much so that i called the company and told them I was concerned about all the bad reviews with regards to my husband's order.  I also asked just "where they get their  new Lumix gh2's" from, when B&H, etc can't get any.  They told me they acquire from other distributors other than directly from Panasonic..whatever that means.  I let them know if anything is wrong with the order I was very well may do a blog post on my site about my experience with their company(or course that didn't phase them...). ...we'll see. Eleanor


leuallen,

 And Eleanor, I checked your website. Very lovely photos. I'll enjoy purusing the whole site in time to come.

Peter
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on July 06, 2011, 11:19:50 pm
Hello Eleanor,

Fingers crossed! I thought your husband already got his GH2?

Best regards
Erik


Thanks Peter.  BTW, I also did a google search for reviews on the ajrichard.com company and found some really bad reviews...so much so that i called the company and told them I was concerned about all the bad reviews with regards to my husband's order.  I also asked just "where they get their  new Lumix gh2's" from, when B&H, etc can't get any.  They told me they acquire from other distributors other than directly from Panasonic..whatever that means.  I let them know if anything is wrong with the order I was very well may do a blog post on my site about my experience with their company(or course that didn't phase them...). ...we'll see. Eleanor


Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: eleanorbrown on July 07, 2011, 11:10:34 am
His gh2 arrives sometime today. Will report back on the order after it arrives. It is supposed to have a US warranty. Eleanor

Hello Eleanor,

Fingers crossed! I thought your husband already got his GH2?

Best regards
Erik


Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: feppe on July 07, 2011, 11:48:57 am
His gh2 arrives sometime today. Will report back on the order after it arrives. It is supposed to have a US warranty. Eleanor


Check that it has all the extras, strap, batteries, memory card, instructions, software, etc. that was promised. Many of the fly-by-night operations strip everything out of the packages and sell them as parts for higher margins.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: tomrock on July 07, 2011, 04:16:55 pm
Check that it has all the extras, strap, batteries, memory card, instructions, software, etc. that was promised. Many of the fly-by-night operations strip everything out of the packages and sell them as parts for higher margins.

With a normal GH2 from Panasonic, there's only one battery and no memory card.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: feppe on July 07, 2011, 04:49:38 pm
With a normal GH2 from Panasonic, there's only one battery and no memory card.

Hence "that was promised," as it's unclear whether the OP ordered a "normal" GH2.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: eleanorbrown on July 08, 2011, 02:21:10 pm
OK, report back on dealings with ajrichard.com.  Lumix GH2 with 14-140 lens arrived yesterday per my husband's order.  The Camera, lens, etc...all seems to be new and everything included "in box" with US warranty.  That the good thing.  I might add the camera was slightly overpriced but not so much so that if one really needed it, the price was acceptable.  What the order team did do was suggest that "the buyer needed all this other stuff.....extra battery, SD card, camera case, set of filters and all they could do is ground ups shipping (to the tune of $60 just for ground shipping!).  All the extra stuff arrived with the shipment but was very low end (ie: the camera bag that was "supposedly" made just for this camera" was way too big and I checked cost of this bag on other sites and it was $22.00 retail).  Anyway to simplify....extra charges including the $60 for shipping came to $500 and the total bill came to about $2150.00.  In fact the extra "stuff" the sales rep said he needed were worth only a fraction of this extra $500.00 they charged him.  So yes. you can get the GH2/14-140 kit new with US warranty just don't let them tell you that you "need" all this other stuff.  That can be bought anywhere and you know what  quality you are getting  the 32 gb storage card they sent...well I'd never heard of the brand nor had I heard of the brand of the three filters....and one of the filters was some type I'd never seen!!!. Eleanor

Check that it has all the extras, strap, batteries, memory card, instructions, software, etc. that was promised. Many of the fly-by-night operations strip everything out of the packages and sell them as parts for higher margins.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: AFairley on July 08, 2011, 05:55:17 pm
Frequently with these places, if you decline all the "other stuff" the camera suddenly disappears from stock. . . . 
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: eleanorbrown on July 08, 2011, 06:31:28 pm
I'm not surprised. eleanor

Frequently with these places, if you decline all the "other stuff" the camera suddenly disappears from stock. . . . 
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: eleanorbrown on July 09, 2011, 11:36:42 am
Further update on ajrichard.com....well the "promised" US warranty turned out to be only good in Latin America.... I personally only do business with B&H primarily, but my husband wanted this camera for a trip so he needed it soon....thus the reason we looked for other places with the GH2 in stock.....as others have said..DO NOT DO BUSINESS with this company ....Eleanor

Frequently with these places, if you decline all the "other stuff" the camera suddenly disappears from stock. . . . 
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on July 09, 2011, 01:26:26 pm
Hi,

Just for information:

One of the two companies I normally buy from here in Sweden has at least 8 samples priced 2283 USD including Swedish sales tax of 25%.

Sorry to hear about your bad experience! I hope that your husband will be satisfied with the camera!

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: feppe on July 10, 2011, 03:04:53 pm
Further update on ajrichard.com....well the "promised" US warranty turned out to be only good in Latin America.... I personally only do business with B&H primarily, but my husband wanted this camera for a trip so he needed it soon....thus the reason we looked for other places with the GH2 in stock.....as others have said..DO NOT DO BUSINESS with this company ....Eleanor

If they claimed it was US warranty you are most likely eligible for full refund. If they are not compliant, call your credit card company - a charge back is a world of hurt for an outfit like that.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: degrub on July 11, 2011, 01:26:35 pm
Eleanor,

i too just bought a GH2 and it had the warranty paper that indicated Latin America. i purchased from a local shop that does not deal in grey market. They confirmed it was not gray market. i made them get Panasonic on the phone.

i spoke with a Panasonic warranty person this morning, and they said that paper has caused a lot of confusion and they have gotten a lot of calls. She said, " because my GH2 was purchased in the US, it has a US warranty. Just keep the receipt. That paper was for if the camera was purchased outside of the US". Her words, not mine. i am  taking Panasonic at their word.

Frank
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: feppe on July 11, 2011, 02:04:24 pm
i too just bought a GH2 and it had the warranty paper that indicated Latin America. i purchased from a local shop that does not deal in grey market. They confirmed it was not gray market. i made them get Panasonic on the phone.

i spoke with a Panasonic warranty person this morning, and they said that paper has caused a lot of confusion and they have gotten a lot of calls. She said, " because my GH2 was purchased in the US, it has a US warranty. Just keep the receipt. That paper was for if the camera was purchased outside of the US". Her words, not mine. i am  taking Panasonic at their word.

A support rep can not change a company's policy. They can often make exceptions on a case-by-case basis, but since you are unlikely to get the same rep (you got her name?) when you need to claim warranty repairs you might face an uphill battle.

What I'm saying is that they can refuse to honor warranty if the agreement says the warranty is for another region - no matter what a support rep or a local sales rep said. Not saying that's going to happen or is even likely to happen, as end-user driven companies such as Panasonic are very much targeting improvements in customer satisfaction, no matter what you see written on the tabloids and the internets.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: eleanorbrown on July 11, 2011, 02:18:56 pm
My husband called ajrichard.com this morning to complain about the latin am. warranty and he was given a similar answer that the support rep gave. Eleanor

A support rep can not change a company's policy. They can often make exceptions on a case-by-case basis, but since you are unlikely to get the same rep (you got her name?) when you need to claim warranty repairs you might face an uphill battle.

What I'm saying is that they can refuse to honor warranty if the agreement says the warranty is for another region - no matter what a support rep or a local sales rep said. Not saying that's going to happen or is even likely to happen, as end-user driven companies such as Panasonic are very much targeting improvements in customer satisfaction, no matter what you see written on the tabloids and the internets.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: degrub on July 11, 2011, 02:46:12 pm
here is the text of my chat with Panasonic from a few minutes ago

Thank you for contacting Panasonic Live Chat. How may I assist you today?
Frank: i have just purchased and registered the DMC-Gh2HK. The paper for warranty suggests that it is only for latin america. i need to confirm that this is a USA warranty item.
Kurt S.: Where did you but the camera?
Frank: Houston Camera Exchange, Houston Tx
Frank: as a local purchase, not web
Frank: serial # WE1EA00xxxx
Kurt S.: Let me do some checks
Frank: ok
Kurt S.: Your warranty information is on page 202 of your manual
Kurt S.: Its covered in the USA
Frank: any different terms from one that is indicated as being USA warranty ?
Kurt S.: ANd it actually says for U.S.A. and Puerto Rico only. Start from page 201
Kurt S.: Are you there?
Frank: so what is the paper that is titled "Limited Worldwide warranty This warranty is valid when the product is purchased in the following countries Latin America " ?
Frank: doc # VQA0884-1M
Kurt S.: Once bought in the U.S.A. it doesn't have worldwide warranty
Kurt S.: It only covers the U.S.A.
Frank: so i ignore that VQA document and go by what is in the manual only ?
Kurt S.: Yes
Frank: ok thanks for clearibg that up
Kurt S.: You're welcome. Have a great day
Panasonic: chat Disconnected.


So check page 201.

Frank
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: feppe on July 11, 2011, 04:58:32 pm
My husband called ajrichard.com this morning to complain about the latin am. warranty and he was given a similar answer that the support rep gave. Eleanor

You are inclined to trust the outfit after your experience with them and the reviews you yourself cited? Really?
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: eleanorbrown on July 11, 2011, 05:17:58 pm
You are kidding right?  me trust ajrichard?   get real.....I personally only do business with B&H.  This is my husband's camera...he wanted a GH2 asap for a fly fishing trip...as an amateur photo taker, he's happy with the camera which seems to be working just fine.  If something goes wrong with it he'll face that delimma when and if the time comes.  Eleanor

You are inclined to trust the outfit after your experience with them and the reviews you yourself cited? Really?
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: feppe on July 11, 2011, 05:46:59 pm
You are kidding right?  me trust ajrichard?   get real.....I personally only do business with B&H.  This is my husband's camera...he wanted a GH2 asap for a fly fishing trip...as an amateur photo taker, he's happy with the camera which seems to be working just fine.  If something goes wrong with it he'll face that delimma when and if the time comes.  Eleanor

Just making sure - it was unclear from your previous post whether you trusted the response or not.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: eleanorbrown on July 11, 2011, 05:55:25 pm
As far as i'm concerned ajrichard is a scam operation and they take major advantage of unsuspecting buyers.  I hope a lot of folks read this forum and are warned and stay away from the company and those sellers like them. eleanor

Just making sure - it was unclear from your previous post whether you trusted the response or not.
Title: Re: Do I really need my full-frame DSLR any more?
Post by: uaiomex on July 12, 2011, 09:55:15 am
That's a good thing for Latin America residents since too many cameras are purchased in USA either at the counter or over the net. I wish Canon Mexico would honor this kind of warranty with their dslr's. Apparently they don't.
Eduardo

Eleanor,

i too just bought a GH2 and it had the warranty paper that indicated Latin America. i purchased from a local shop that does not deal in grey market. They confirmed it was not gray market. i made them get Panasonic on the phone.

i spoke with a Panasonic warranty person this morning, and they said that paper has caused a lot of confusion and they have gotten a lot of calls. She said, " because my GH2 was purchased in the US, it has a US warranty. Just keep the receipt. That paper was for if the camera was purchased outside of the US". Her words, not mine. i am  taking Panasonic at their word.

Frank