As much as I would love to, I can't justify the upgrade. I only shoot for fun so spending a few thousand isn't on the cards just yet!
Fair enough,know the feeling about money :arghh:
As much as I would love to, I can't justify the upgrade. I only shoot for fun so spending a few thousand isn't on the cards just yet!
Time to get a Fuji X Pro 1?As much as I would love to, I can't justify the upgrade. I only shoot for fun so spending a few thousand isn't on the cards just yet!
As much as I would love to, I can't justify the upgrade. I only shoot for fun so spending a few thousand isn't on the cards just yet!
Time to get a Fuji X Pro 1?
I don't normally look into people's kit choices particularly but your comment about only shooting for fun made me look and as far as I can see, you use/used a D4, D3S and 1DX. Whilst I agree that these are obviously the 'best tool for the job', can I ask what capacity you use them for? From your comments against CSC's I assume you shoot professionally?
I'm not passing comment either way, just interested in the actual use for these high-end systems in comparison to what a CSC could offer.
Sell the D3 and buy every Fuji camera and lens in the range. Sell the rest off book a fab holiday, and enjoy a lighter life. I bet you would take more pictures not having to lug that lot around.I don't shoot professionally; if I had to feed my family based on my photography then they would go hungry. I used to work at Getty Images but not as a photographer.
My cameras now are a D3, D4, D800 and an F5. Ignoring the F5, I could probably use a CSC based system for 75% of the photos I take but given that extra 25% and that I own a fairly extensive range of Nikon glass from 14mm to 400mm, continuing with the dSLR makes sense.
Yeah, there are some. But with better battery life I'm sure there would be whole lot more (me included).
I can't believe people who love mirrorless so much don't think Nikon and Canon will release a mirrorless pro grade camera that will work with their existing pro lens range. Really quite laughable.
As for the lack of decent AF, that's why mirrorless cameras are no use to me and many pro photographers. Couple that with zero decent long lens options and I'm very happy sticking with my dSLRs for the foreseeable.
Indeed and IMO, only an idiot would buy something they think they wouldn't like, use it and then confirm their original thoughts.I don't think you need to buy them to know they aren't what you are looking for.
Indeed and IMO, only an idiot would buy something they think they wouldn't like, use it and then confirm their original thoughts.
Whilst agree that the NEX 'looks' unbalanced with the original 18-55 kit lens (and others of similar size), in use the balance is actually spot on. When using it I just have a wrist strap off a Wii remote attached to it for security and balance it on the tips of my fingers around the grip. Combined with being very light and the grip being large enough to hold it's actually really comfortable. When I shoot, it's just a matter of lifting it to my eyeline with one hand and zooming with my left.
Contrary to this, it's much harder to hold a medium sized SLR with one hand without gripping it more tightly due to the increased weight.
Again, I think actually using a CSC is preferable to looking at one and assuming it's unbalanced.
I fail to see why there is this big war between the two camps.
Yes.No, you don't have to buy one but have they actually held or used one?
It's because there's so many die hard CSC owners trying to convert every camera owner and his wife to them and don't understand there are different tools for different needs.I fail to see why there is this big war between the two camps.
I know that this will have Alan and the rest of the m4/3 evangelists reaching for their ducking stools and rose-tinted glasses but I really couldn't get on with micro-four thirds in any kind of meaningful way despite owning one for a while... With the exception of the OM-D, they've all felt cheap and plasticky (although I'll admit that there are plenty of APS-C DSLR's that are similar). The image quality hasn't been up to a standard I find acceptable and the AF performance has been woeful for some of the photography that I engage in.
I do however believe that mirrorless systems in general are the way forward. You've only got to look at the new Fuji X-T1 to see that they're becoming a force to be reckoned with. For me, mirrorless systems with large sensors are appealing... Micro four-thirds isn't.
Could I see myself ditching full-frame cameras with mirror assemblies in favour of a CSC? Yes, probably but the replacement would have to be as good in EVERY respect!
At present, mirrorless systems are good but not quite there yet... I can see the potential benefits but I'm not blinded by them. Let's see what the future holds.
If they did that, they would end up with something very similar to the pentax mirrorless brick. They cant get round the distance between lens and sensor slr lenses require.
The K-01 was just a terrible design from the start, more of a gimmick that an attempt to find a serious solution. Your never going to get an ultra compact design from an SLR flange distance and I think a lot of the ASPC market might well move towards a smaller one but I see much less of a need with either ASPC use of longer lenses or FF.
With FF your looking at significantly larger lens sizes(remember M mount lenses lack AF and camera aperture control) and users who generally want a high degree of manual control. Is a smaller flange distance really going to have much gain in usability? you take away the mirror and you'll probably making a shorter camera(EVF taking up less space than a prism, no AF sensor below) but if there a great need for a narrower one? indeed with the recent Sony FE lenses is actually seems like the short flange distance causes problems with digital sensors potentially leading to longer lenses, so you may just be looking at deeper body vs longer lens.
Again I think its notable that both Canon and Nikon have put most of their focus on developing FF lenses over the past 2-3 years.
I don't find a DSLR (even a large one) to be the hassle that CSC users make it out to be.
Flange distance is very important in wide angle lens design. all DSLR's need to use large inverted telephoto designs ( retro focus) simply because the the back focus is far too short otherwise. This is neither efficient nor the best way to achieve high quality short focus lens designs. Even fisheyes become massive.
enough to miss one important sequence of shots.
That's why most pros have two cameras with them
Both with identical lenses perhaps? And we all love primes, don't we?
...Adopting the 5Ps maxim is always a good choice. Prior Planning Preparation Prevent P*** Poor Performance. This starts long before the job.
Seven 'P's Nick!
That's one of my favourite quotes from my army days!
But have these pros USED a csc and given it a fair chance!?!?!Out of interest I just ran a survey on another forum I'm a member of. All full-time pros, mainly weddings with some commercial, some portrait and a couple of specialist children photographers.
50 replies.
88% are using only DSLR's. 8% are using mainly DSLR and occasionally a CSC and 4% are solely using CSC (all Fuji).
Reasons given for not yet moving were:
OVF (or only having an EVF which is still seen as an issue in low light and bright sunlight, X-T1 included)
Battery life
AF not yet at the level of a D600 level body (let alone a D3/4/1Dx etc), especially in low light
Legacy lens options
Flash system (or lack of)
There is a lot of feeling that carrying a set of smaller, lighter, less costly bodies has a huge appeal, and that can also be beneficial in terms of being discreet, but the overwhelming feeling is that it's currently not quite there. 18 months+ might have very different answers...the X-Pro2 (should it appear) is interesting to lot. I should stress that many of us have tried Fuji and Olympus CSC's.