Nikon’s new mirrorless system, coming in ... late September 2018

[HSakols]

Or Galen would have embraced a Nikon 7200 and a kit lens?  But at that point I would just go with the Olympus.

[armand]

Or Galen would have embraced a Nikon 7200 and a kit lens?  But at that point I would just go with the Olympus.

The smaller formats do have the advantage of increased DOF, usually nice to have in landscape, but they come with less DR and more work on colors. From what I read on Galen I think a small m43, E-M5 or smaller, with a couple of small sharp zooms (the much lighter nonpro) are very good candidates. On the same token a X-T20 with the 18-55 would look good too.
In the end I would vote for a Nikon 3000's series with something like a 18-55 or 18-140 lens for one major reason: battery. You can go much longer with a single battery if you don't review the shots, you can plan your shots without even turning on the camera.

[BernardLanguillier]

The smaller formats do have the advantage of increased DOF, usually nice to have in landscape, but they come with less DR and more work on colors. From what I read on Galen I think a small m43, E-M5 or smaller, with a couple of small sharp zooms (the much lighter nonpro) are very good candidates. On the same token a X-T20 with the 18-55 would look good too.
In the end I would vote for a Nikon 3000's series with something like a 18-55 or 18-140 lens for one major reason: battery. You can go much longer with a single battery if you don't review the shots, you can plan your shots without even turning on the camera.

We'd have to ask Thom Hogan his view on this. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard

[Dan Wells]

The problem with Micro 4/3 is the image quality hit from the sensor... In the days of film, Galen's FM2 (if I remember correctly) took exactly the same picture as an F4 three times the size and weight - it didn't do the work for you, but if you had the same film in it and the same lens on it, you could get the same result (and there were good small primes, and the occasional zoom, if you were willing to sacrifice aperture to get the size and weight).

Now, the film is part of the camera, and Micro 4/3 cameras are permanently loaded with film that has a lower maximum acuity (ability to reproduce details) and dynamic range than a good larger sensor. I have always found that sensors smaller than APS-C don't live up to their MP rating by the standards of larger sensors. A 12 MP iPhone doesn't have over half the overall performance of 20 MP Micro 4/3, and, in turn, 20 MP Micro 4/3 doesn't have 5/6 the performance of 24 MP Fuji. Between good APS-C and full-frame, it's darned close - if you rank modern APS-C and larger sensors by MP, you have a good idea of their overall performance for low ISO landscape-type shooting.

 Digital performance as a whole is better than most films used to be, so even a good Micro 4/3 sensor with a good lens can beat almost all 35mm film. On the other hand, an X-T2 with the 18-55 (one of the few actually decent compact APS-C zooms, and it's very good) can beat most 645 film (I print high-detail landscape as large as 24x36 from that combination). Double the acuity of the sensor again (and add dynamic range) by going to a Z7 with the new 24-70, assuming it lives up to its computed MTF chart, and you're past 6x9 cm medium format and closely approaching 4x5" territory.

[armand]

Theoretically the difference between m43 and APS-C is smaller than the difference between APS-C and full frame. I think a lot of the extra difference between m43 and APS-C is related to the generation of the sensor. I have the RX100 iv and its sensor is quite close to the m43 from the E-M5ii, closer than expected based on the size difference.

With a top of the line sensor m43 can stay competitive for when light and compact is needed. Problem is for how long can m43 survive, Oly is not having much success lately. With the new releases in the mirrorless world it's difficult to justify the price on the E-M1ii and the new one needs to even better for less, tough to do.

[scooby70]

I'd recommend that people start with the end product they want to produce and work backwards from there.

Do you want a picture to be viewed on screen or printed and if so how large? Will you be cropping? Is the subject static or moving? What end image quality is acceptable? That sort of thing. Once these questions are asked and answered an informed decision can be made.

I've been a MFT user since the GF1 came out and IMO the later bodies produce image quality that would have been almost science fiction just a few years ago. When I had my 5D I thought it was all the camera I'd ever need but MFT very probably beats the 5D let alone anything I ever got from 35mm film for image quality (IMO) and enables me to take pictures at much higher ISO's and still get a useable and even good result.

I'd disagree with some of the opinions of others regarding Fuji APS-C. I've not seen anything for Fuji so far that would convince me to go that route and I don't think APS-C leaves MFT too far behind at all. I think that FF is a significant move forward from MFT but there are drawbacks too which can include bulk, cost and weight depending upon your choice of lens and perhaps even performance as the latter MFT bodies are incredibly fast beasts.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I'd recommend that people start with the end product they want to produce and work backwards from there.

Do you want a picture to be viewed on screen or printed and if so how large? Will you be cropping? Is the subject static or moving? What end image quality is acceptable? That sort of thing. Once these questions are asked and answered an informed decision can be made.

Great comment and one that is too often overlooked as we debate arcane facts about cameras.  If one is only going to print modest size (less than 17x25) a 24 megapixel sensor is just fine so one would opt for a Z6 if that is the primary consideration.  Personally, I think we are really spoiled with all this great equipment (cameras, printers and software).  Look at what all the great photographers of the pre-digital age had to do to get great prints (I'm not saying that everyone with a digital camera and printer makes great prints but the ease in accomplishing things is key).  Lots of us started printing while using 6mP and 12mP cameras and now look at sensor size.  Folks are moaning about the absence of two card slots on these new cameras despite the fact that we all coped well enough when we had cameras with one card slot.  I never had a card or read failure with my old D300 over about 7000 digital captures.  I don't even use the CF slot on the D810.

[armand]

The main reason I would be interested in a high resolution body is the fact I gain 1.5xFL with good quality from the APS-C region.

[Ray]

The main reason I would be interested in a high resolution body is the fact I gain 1.5xFL with good quality from the APS-C region.

Not only is a 1.5x crop capability useful, but also a 2x crop, and 3x crop, and even a 4x crop. A 3x crop of a 45mp image would be 5 mp, probably good enough for an A4 size print. A 4x crop would be only 2.8 mp, probably still good enough for an A4 size print, or at least 5" x 7" print, as well as an HDTV display, depending on the nature of the subject and the quality of the lens used. If razor sharp eyelashes and sharp individual strands of hair are required, then 2.8 mp and 5 mp crops would not pass muster.

When I first visited this site, Canon's first DSLR, the 3 mp D30, was all the rage. Michael praised this camera for matching the resolution of 35mm film, at least on an A4 size print, but not quite on an A3 size print. We had to wait for the 6 mp D60 for that. The camera following the D60 was the 10D which had noticeably improved noise characteristics, but was still 6 mp.

Out of interest, I've compared DXOMark's results for that early Canon 10D, with the recent Nikon D850, at the pixel level (ie. screen option).

Amazingly, at base ISO, the SNR at 18% level, for the smaller D850 pixel, is 2dB better than the 10D pixel, not significant, but better than nothing. The DR of the D850 pixel is very significantly higher, a full 2.5 stops better. Tonal range is also better for the D850 pixel. Color Sensitivity is at least marginally better, at base ISO. However, such improvements do not apply at higher ISOs, except for DR, which is still close to 2 stops better at all high ISOs.

[BernardLanguillier]

Great comment and one that is too often overlooked as we debate arcane facts about cameras.  If one is only going to print modest size (less than 17x25) a 24 megapixel sensor is just fine so one would opt for a Z6 if that is the primary consideration.  Personally, I think we are really spoiled with all this great equipment (cameras, printers and software).  Look at what all the great photographers of the pre-digital age had to do to get great prints (I'm not saying that everyone with a digital camera and printer makes great prints but the ease in accomplishing things is key).  Lots of us started printing while using 6mP and 12mP cameras and now look at sensor size.  Folks are moaning about the absence of two card slots on these new cameras despite the fact that we all coped well enough when we had cameras with one card slot.  I never had a card or read failure with my old D300 over about 7000 digital captures.  I don't even use the CF slot on the D810.

That is all very true, but it is difficult to accept going back once you’ve gotten used to better.

Cheers,
Bernard

[chez]

That is all very true, but it is difficult to accept going back once you’ve gotten used to better.

Cheers,
Bernard

Exactly right. We all once watched TV on 21" screens and thought it was great. Now we can't even process our images on anything less than 27".

[Dan Wells]

That's very true of 35mm film - people sometimes forget that 11x14" was about the maximum for good print quality from most film on a high-detail subject - 16x20" required very slow film and a lot of care... 24x36" was clearly medium-format territory.

[Ray]

I'm curious to test for myself how a 4x crop of a D810 image can look. Is the detail good enough for an A4 size print?
The attached full-frame image of ancient Buddha statues carved into a rocky hillside in China (Hangzhou), and attached 4x crop of the same image, illustrate my point.

The full-frame shot portrays the general background, and the crop shows the full detail of the sitting Buddha, which would only be visible on a 32" x 48" size print, from a close viewing point.

A 4x crop of the 36mp of the D810 is just 2.25mp. The example I've shown is a downsized 2.3mp crop, close enough. It was a dull day, and to get a reasonably fast shutter speed in the lighting conditions, I had to raise ISO to 200, using an aperture of F5.6 for reasonable DoF. The lens doesn't have image stabilization. A faster shutter speed would probably have delivered sharper results. (Nikkor 14-24 at 24mm and F5.6 - shutter speed 1/50th, hand-held.)

If we use that ancient guideline of a shutter speed of 1/focal length for a reasonably sharp A4 size print, in the days of film, then 1/50th is a bit on the slow side. A 4x crop of a 24mm full-frame shot is equivalent to a 4x24mm = 96mm lens. Perhaps I should have used a shutter speed of 1/100th. 

If I'd been using a Nikon Z7 with adapter, in these circumstances, the 4x crop factor would have resulted in a 2.86 mp image, a slight improvement over 2.25 mp. However, more significantly, I would have been able to use the base ISO of 64 because of the IBIS feature of the Z7. The resulting image would be slightly sharper because of the greater pixel count, probably sharper to some degree because of the image stabilization, and would definitely have lower noise at ISO 64, compared with ISO 200.

Are all these factors significant when combined? I think so. Oops! I'm getting a bit anal. Must rush to the toilet. 

[jeremyrh]

Great comment and one that is too often overlooked as we debate arcane facts about cameras.  If one is only going to print modest size (less than 17x25) a 24 megapixel sensor is just fine so one would opt for a Z6 if that is the primary consideration. 

Maybe, but I am impressed with your composition skills if you print all your pixels! I shoot a lot of dancers and leave a margin for error to make sure I don't clip a foot or something; I end up using about half the pixels on a good day. That's OK with a D850 but limiting with u43.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Maybe, but I am impressed with your composition skills if you print all your pixels! I shoot a lot of dancers and leave a margin for error to make sure I don't clip a foot or something; I end up using about half the pixels on a good day. That's OK with a D850 but limiting with u43.

Except for street photography, I try to choose the lens (or zoom length it that's what I am using) to capture the image in full frame.  This minimizes cropping so that I have as many pixels as possible.  In addition, I don't think I have ever printed bigger than 17x25 as that's pretty much the capacity of my Epson 3880. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

That's very true of 35mm film - people sometimes forget that 11x14" was about the maximum for good print quality from most film on a high-detail subject - 16x20" required very slow film and a lot of care... 24x36" was clearly medium-format territory.

In the print days, one was also limited by available paper sizes and for really big prints a special enlarger was required.  Some years ago we had a very exhaustive Ansel Adams retrospective at the National Gallery here in Washington and I don't think there was any print larger than a 16x20 (which was only a two-fold enlargement for an 8x10 negative or four-fold from a 4x5).  With modern inkjet printers and wide roll paper, prints much larger than that are much easier to produce.  If Adams were alive today he would marvel at the small size of equipment that can produce extremely sharp prints relative to the view cameras he trekked with.

[Rob C]

That's very true of 35mm film - people sometimes forget that 11x14" was about the maximum for good print quality from most film on a high-detail subject - 16x20" required very slow film and a lot of care... 24x36" was clearly medium-format territory.

I used to regularly have 40"x60" exhibition fashion prints made from Nikon negatives (FP3/4) for fashion conventions, manufacturer display and department store promotion.

The secret is expected viewing distance and not some arbitrary number some guy dreams up after a bad night's sleep. If you have to sniff, try coke or just catch a cold.

Frankly, photographers are the last people anyone should ask when it comes to such matters: their heads are so often up their ass and clouded by thoughts of how much their toy cost, what it should do and on and interminably on.

Reality is reality, not some theoretical numbers game. But hey, that would kill the "fun" part, right?

Oy vey, already.

[D Fuller]

I used to regularly have 40"x60" exhibition fashion prints made from Nikon negatives (FP3/4) for fashion conventions, manufacturer display and department store promotion.

The secret is expected viewing distance and not some arbitrary number some guy dreams up after a bad night's sleep. If you have to sniff, try coke or just catch a cold.

Frankly, photographers are the last people anyone should ask when it comes to such matters: their heads are so often up their ass and clouded by thoughts of how much their toy cost, what it should do and on and interminably on.

Reality is reality, not some theoretical numbers game. But hey, that would kill the "fun" part, right?

Oy vey, already.

This is a really god point, Rob.

I remember going to an Avedon retrospective at MoMA a few years ago, where there were plenty of 20x24 and larger from 35mm negs. I commented at the time that the "technical" quality by today's standards was awful. Camera shake was evident all over the place. But oh, what wonderful images! I suspect that the inability to zoom an image up 1:1 on a monitor saved a lot if truly wonderful images from the dustbin over the last half-century.

[Rob C]

This is a really god point, Rob.

I remember going to an Avedon retrospective at MoMA a few years ago, where there were plenty of 20x24 and larger from 35mm negs. I commented at the time that the "technical" quality by today's standards was awful. Camera shake was evident all over the place. But oh, what wonderful images! I suspect that the inability to zoom an image up 1:1 on a monitor saved a lot if truly wonderful images from the dustbin over the last half-century.

Yes, and you made an equally good one about Avedon.

For my own photography these days, I seldom zoom to anything above whatever the file opens up at on the monitor. Usually, I lower that down too, so that my editing image looks to be about 4"x6" on the screen. That way, I get a pretty good idea of what the image is, rather than what parts of it look like. A big display forces that scanning process because the eye just can't help scanning. It's what it does all day. Wood; trees.

I do blow it up when I have to do something clever locally, and it's too tiny for me to cope with small.

Of course, were I still in the selling business, then I would naturally inspect everything at 100% before even starting work on a file.

No longer having a working photographic-style printer, all I'm interested in achieving is what looks okay on my website.

That said, I often think on the topic of posterity and how fleeting the life of a file will probably be. So much effort, time, love and care, and perhaps it will all vanish without tangible trace.

[BJL]

Thanks Rob for the sanity about what I more geekishly call _intended apparent image size_ which comes down to the ratio of image size to viewing distance. I usually see huge prints viewed from the same distance as an equally large painting—a bit further than the long dimension of the image. With that “normal” or “typical” viewing, what works for an 8”x10” viewed from 12” to 15” (the comfortable minimum for most people, at least past a certain age) is just as good when those inches are replaced by feet or metres. And there is good evidence that about 5MP is then good enough for most images viewed that way. For example, 2000x1600 = 3.2MP is enough for a 200 PPI dye sub print at 10X8, and such prints were already considered a match for traditional darkroom prints for quality.

I also remember the Canon 1D being taken seriously even for various professional tasks like weddings, and it had a 4MP CCD (outsourced from Panasonic).

Since that is how I typically intend my images to be viewed, 24MP would already make me comfortable with very loose framing of wildlife or dancers, allowing a 2X crop if needed.