Ditching nikon?

[fahim mohammed]

After 36 years of being a Nikon user, I am seriously thinking of ditching it. I believe that the current
Nikon line-up is the best there is in a dslr. However, age is catching up and carrying heavy zooms to
get the best optics is becoming a pita.

Canon has the zooms that I would like..the f/4 ones, but the white/light grey coating is just unbearable.

Rumors of a 16-? f/4 nikon zoom seem interesting, but when? I desperately need vr/is in my longer zooms and f2.8 is not really a requirement for me; neither is f4.5 variable.

I am happy with my walkabout leicas and their f/1.4. no one comes near. but once in a while one needs
to go beyond 75mm ( which is really outside rf terriority imho ). The zeiss zf 100/2 is excellent, but lack
of afs has cost me some; and it is heavy for a prime at 100mm.

In-body stabilisation, a superb zeiss 135mm, a good set of mf and wa zooms is available for the sony alpha range.

I am confused, and would like some advice, please.

Hope you folks don't mind my sharing my frustrations aloud.

Regards.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Wow. I understand why you're frustrated!

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

After 36 years of being a Nikon user, I am seriously thinking of ditching it. I believe that the current Nikon line-up is the best there is in a dslr. However, age is catching up and carrying heavy zooms to get the best optics is becoming a pita.

Hi Fahim,

Zooms do not necessarily offer the best optical performance, but they do offer flexibity of multiple focal lengths in a single package. One notable exception may be the Nikon 14-24mm G zoom lens. However, zooms are not lightweight items (due to the need of many optical elements and internal displacement gearings), so one always has to compare carrying several fixed focus lenses versus a zoom that covers the same focal lengths, both in bulk and weight.

Canon has the zooms that I would like..the f/4 ones, but the white/light grey coating is just unbearable.

I agree it's not the most disguised tint for streetphotographers, but it does (besides being a marketing tool) keep the internal temperature down in bright sunshine.

I am happy with my walkabout leicas and their f/1.4. no one comes near. but once in a while one needs to go beyond 75mm ( which is really outside rf terriority imho ). The zeiss zf 100/2 is excellent, but lack of afs has cost me some; and it is heavy for a prime at 100mm.

In-body stabilisation, a superb zeiss 135mm, a good set of mf and wa zooms is available for the sony alpha range.

I have no experience with the alphas, but in general in body stabilisation is sub-optimal for a wide range of focal lengths. The image stabilisation requirements for longer focal lengths require much larger displacement than for short focal lengths which in turn need much finer stepper pitches.

Hope you folks don't mind my sharing my frustrations aloud.

Coming from you, who could mind ...

I think you need an image stabilized compact tele lens, although before swapping platforms you obviously need to find suitable equivalents for the high quality focal lengths you use most, not an easy task indeed. Which platform use choose may not be an easy choice either, but also don't forget the quality of the Raw filedata that that platform can offer. I think Sony Raw data quality leaves a lot of room for improvement, but things can change.

So, the choice becomes:
1. Which focal lengths do you (want to) use most, percentage wise, including a short telelens?
2. Can you find equivalents from different brands and how do they rate in quality?
3. How do they rate in weight/bulk? Later, when the choice has been narrowed, you might want to factor in the weight of a body for fair comparison between brands.
4. Is there a zoom alternative that comes close to covering several of the fixed focal lengths?
5. Also rate that zoom, or those zooms, on quality and weight.
6. Multiply the rating by the usage percentages for an overall weighted score.
7. Which brand has the highest score, and how good is the Raw data quality, and the viability of the company to survive these turbulent economic times?
8. Flip a coin ;-)

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Fahim,

After 36 years of being a Nikon user, I am seriously thinking of ditching it. I believe that the current
Nikon line-up is the best there is in a dslr. However, age is catching up and carrying heavy zooms to
get the best optics is becoming a pita.

Think Four Thirds.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Rachel, every trip I plan has become an agony re: carrying nikon!

Bart, thanks for your considered reply. Flipping a coin maybe a bit drastic, but very sound advice between
2 choices. One gets spoilt by the size/wt of the m system. I do feel pangs of sorrow that I might leave
my nikon friends afyer such a long partnership; which has given me tremendous pleasure over the years.
Guess there must be life after nikon!

Doug, very succinct and something I am seriously considering. Shall be grateful if you would share
your experiences with olympus if you have had any. You did mean 4/3 and not micro 4/3?


I need something in the range of 70-200mm and portrait lens betwen 85 and 135mm. Autofocus and
image stabilisation is a must for me. Low leve is not a must as I have to get used to my trusty gitzo
once again.

I am grateful for your time and suggestions.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Fahim,

Doug, very succinct and something I am seriously considering. Shall be grateful if you would share
your experiences with olympus if you have had any. You did mean 4/3 and not micro 4/3?.

I really meant both Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds, although I suspect the latter is the most potent force here. You may recognize that I am a big fan of the electronic viewfinder formulation.

But I have had no experience with any Four Thirds machines, nor with other Olympus stuff (except during colonoscopies).

Best regards,

Doug

 

[fahim mohammed]

yes sir, my experience at the Mayo in Rochester was with an Olympus up my...and here down my
throat. This has been an on-going exercise every 2/3 years. Not that I have got used to it!!!

Re: normal photography in daylight the GF1 seems appealing whereas the EP series has in-body stabilisation.

Take care Doug, and please stay healthy!

Hi, Fahim,



I really meant both Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds, although I suspect the latter is the most potent force here. You may recognize that I am a big fan of the electronic viewfinder formulation.

But I have had no experience with any Four Thirds machines, nor with other Olympus stuff (except during colonoscopies).

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Andreas Schmidt]

I need something in the range of 70-200mm and portrait lens betwen 85 and 135mm. Autofocus and image stabilisation is a must for me. Low leve is not a must as I have to get used to my trusty gitzo once again.

Well - then Sony Alpha might be a choice. There is 1,4/85 and 1,8/135, both designed (but NOT build) by Zeiss. With in-body stabilization - you don't get that else. Draw back: there is only 2,8/70-200, expensive and really heavy. Also the 135 is also a little monster No 4/70-200 available, neither 2,8/135.
The A900 (or A850) give great image quality (at least RAW, and up to ISO800 - though Lightroom 3 will be a big step forward, from what I've seen). But take care, there is no flash inside...

On the other hand - that's not less heavy than your Nikon gear! Not really a win :-(

Andreas

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Fahim,

I understand - even though I can manage the big dslr's the rf kit spoils you. I'm not sure you'll get all you want in a dslr. An obvoud kit would be the 5D with the 70-200f4L and one of the 85/1.8 (or 1.2), 100//2 or 2.8, or 135/2. But it's still actually pretty big and heavy. If you go crop you can use the 85 instead of the 135, but the zoom's a bit harder.

The Oly EP-2 might work, but you're back to an evf and I disagree with Doug on those.

You might also try a Pentax with one of their little primes, perhaps the 77mm on a crop body would be good. I'm sure they do a sensible zoom too. Just a thought.

Or you could buy a Zeiss ZM 85/2 Sonnar for your M8!

Mike

 

[Clayton Lofgren]

I have both an Alpha700 and 350. The 700 is a joy to use but the 350 somewhat less so. It seems like all of the recent aps-c Alphas more resemble the 350, and you may find them lacking some features, like mirror lock up, pc socket. or ability to shoot tethered. I am a big fan of the in body IS.
I do not need wide angle, so I went with a Tamron 28-70 2.8 for a short zoom. For you a better choice would probably be the CZ16-80. For the longer zoom, in order to stay small I would look at Tamron or Sigma. Sigma have a 50-150 2.8 that looks good. I am quite happy with the cheap little kit 55-200 myself.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Andreas, Mike, Clayton...

Thank you all so much for your suggestions and thoughts. A lot to mull over for sure.

I am investigating the use of my m lenses on a GF1 with the appropriate adaptor. Anybody have any
views/experiences with such a combo. It might make for less lens purchases except maybe the
14-140mm or the 45-200mm zoom with is?

Best regards.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Fahim,

For value the 70-200 f4 of canon is light, pocketable, for me at least, and there are black covers that work fine. There are also an impressive array of fixed focus black L lenses for canon. The 135 mm is superb and light. That or a new 100 mm macro would be perfect. With the 5D II, the resolution of likely more than enough for almost anything you need outside of the RF world.

Asher

 

[fahim mohammed]

Asher, I did have the 135/2 and the 5D 2 years ago for a short time. That is one lens I fell in love with.
The 24-105 L I had was passable, never really was happy with it. But what a fl. Would have been sufficient for me, with a 135mm ( miss IS ) would have been a dream team.

Nikon has nowhere near the breadth of fls like canon!

Regards.

Fahim,

For value the 70-200 f4 of canon is light, pocketable, for me at least, and there are black covers that work fine. There are also an impressive array of fixed focus black L lenses for canon. The 135 mm is superb and light. That or a new 100 mm macro would be perfect. With the 5D II, the resolution of likely more than enough for almost anything you need outside of the RF world.

Asher

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Hi Fahim

The 135/2 and the 200/2.8 are both wonderful lenses, but no IS (there is the 200/2IS...) but of course you are left with a bid dslr body to go with. My 24-105 is pretty good in sharpness terms, although the corners are a bit iffy on big prints. It suffers a lot of distortion, though DXo is pretty good, but has excellent IS.

Wish I hadn't mentioned that ZM 85/2 Sonnar...
Mike

 

[fahim mohammed]

Hello Mike,

Mike I do have 3 90mm ms. the f4.5, f2.8 elmarit-m and the f2 apo. Just do not like the apo, the elmarit is ok and the macro-m has gone out only once!

The sonnar is reputedly a class act with a price to match!
For rf I think 50mm or most 75mm is the comfortable limit.

Regards.

Hi Fahim
.....
Wish I hadn't mentioned that ZM 85/2 Sonnar...
Mike

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Hi Fahim,

I have 'only' one 90 - the M-Rokkor 90/4. Apparently it is the Minota variant of the Elmarit(?) 90/4 and I think mine dates from about '76. It's a super little lens, but I don't tend to use it much as I too find it a bit long on the rf and am more likely to put the 85/1.8 on the dslr instead. I really like the 35 and 50 to be honest, with occasional fun using the 25 or 15.

I only have one of each of these focal lengths as well

Mike

 

[Wendy Thurman]

Fahim-

I feel your pain on the weight issue. The big (fast) Nikon zooms are an onerous load. I can't see where switching to Canon would solve that problem to the degree that would justify the expense of a system change.

I'm still waiting on an M9 and suspect that once I have one, it will be my go-to land camera. In the interim, the G11 is looking very attractive. On the upcoming dive trip to Indonesia, I plan on taking the D3x, 16mm FE, and 105 Macro. The camera housing, ports, and strobes fill a Pelican 1620 case (which screams "steal me!" to baggage handlers) and will push me over the airline weight limit when I throw in the dive gear. Any above-water photography will have to be done with something small and manageable, which the Nikon system isn't.

Too much stuff- this is all getting out of hand!

Wendy

 

[Asher Kelman]

Fahim,

The resolution of the Nikon sensors and low light sensitivities obviates the absolute need for zooms in most uses.

Hoever, Nikon has the dream 14-24 f2.8 ED, AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED and the AF VR Zoom-NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED

With these you could do anything. However, I'd be happy with a 35mm, 50mm or 85mm prime too as my only lens with the magnificent Nikon flagship.

With the extra resolution of the sensor, fine lenses and low light sensitivity I see no reason to jump ship. Right now, if I had no camera I'd buy as a start the Nikon D700, the 14-24 and the 500 mm that's it. However, I'm in Canon and can do what I need.

You have the advantage of being able to use the 14-24 Native!

Asher

 

[Nigel Allan]

I understand your dilemma. I like my Nikon D300 and 18-200mm combo as it is easy to use and does pretty much all I need, but I was always used to my Pentax LX when shooting film which is well formed, light, discreet so ANY DSLR is bulky and clunky for me. In fact I really resisted getting any DSLR since I can't stand the size and weight of modern DSLRs. Period. But you have to move with the times

I agree that switching to Canon doesn't really seem to solve your issue. And personally I cannot stand electronic viewfinders so the four thirds is no option for me.

Even though it is the closest in terms of weight and footprint to my LX I have yet seen in a DSLR, I held off getting the Pentax K7 when it came out as I felt it was a little overpriced and they had a sensor overheating problem plus I wasn't convinced about their AF speed or metering.

Now I am having second throughts. It has come down in price by a few hundred pounds and is looking like a very nice, discreet and handy option. They have solved their bugs they had at launch and of course I have old Pentax lenses and there is a wide choice of primes and zooms plus the IS is in the body.

I am not in immediate need but if I had the opportunity to travel a lot right now and weight and bulk was an issue like it seems for you, I seriously think the Pentax K7 and system gives the best return in terms of overall quality versus size/weight.. And it is fully weatherproofed, a feature they major on in their marketing so shooting in heavy rain is no problem.

There are always compromises and there are things I don't like about Nikon, Canon, or Pentax, and things I do. If weight and size isn't an issue I agree with Asher, the D700 is also very tempting

But I like street and discreet photography and don't want to walk around looking like a paparazzo, so the Pentax is where I would head if I were spending my money again right now (I can't afford Leica ).

A couple of weeks ago I was in Covent Garden with my son and almost physically bumped into Emma Watson with her boyfriend (Harry Potter actress and the highest paid female star in Hollywood last year - £19m) and would have snapped a photo for my daughters who are fans but actually held off since I felt very self conscious carrying my Nikon. I think I would have got a hostile reaction, which I somehow doubt I would have got with the Pentax which doesn't come across as 'professional' in the same way.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Wendy, Nigel..thanks for your thoughts. It would seem a lot of folks share the pain of heavy weights and
humongous size of our gear.

I have not yet decided on anything specific. Just trying things out in the shops ane weighing my options.

Thank you all for your valuable advice.

Regards.

 

[Steve Robinson]

Hi Fahim,

As a long time Pentaxian I will of course champion the new K7 which is smaller and lighter than my K20D. The K7 will accept any lens ever made by Pentax which is a plus but the newer DA* 50-135 f/2.8 is not too big or heavy and is very sharp. As for being discrete there are also the Limited primes which are well regarded. I wish you luck in finding a system that will fit your needs and provide the quality images you desire. Let us know the outcome of your search.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Good evening Steve..

Thanks for your suggestion. My first serious camera, after the Brownie and a Konica, was a Asahi Pentax Spotmatic. I was in love with it. My Super-Takumar lenses..all 2 of them were my pride and joy. I had wonderful moments with it. My early marraige days while I was at University saw me with my Pentax. The memories still live with our slides and film. Alas, the camera got stolen and after saving for a long time I eventually bought a Nikon..and to this day a Nikon is still a dear companion to me; albeit
it seems to be gaining weight!

Regards.

Hi Fahim,

As a long time Pentaxian I will of course champion the new K7 which is smaller and lighter than my K20D. The K7 will accept any lens ever made by Pentax which is a plus but the newer DA* 50-135 f/2.8 is not too big or heavy and is very sharp. As for being discrete there are also the Limited primes which are well regarded. I wish you luck in finding a system that will fit your needs and provide the quality images you desire. Let us know the outcome of your search.

 

[Steve Robinson]

My first Pentax was the SV, the predecessor to the SP. I recently bought another for nostalgia reasons for $40. I had to have some work done on it but it now works just fine. Amazing how nice it still is to hold up to my eye!

 

[fahim mohammed]

Just as I was preparing to ditch Nikon they announce the 16-35mm f/4 VR and the 24/1.4!!
Now what will be next? The 70-200mm f/4 VR, the 24-105mm f/4 VR? Af-s, nano coating, aspherical element and Ed glass!!

Things look interesting. I shall wait awhile. Imagine this with the D700 high iso..wow!

I think I need to go somewhere exotic....

 

[fahim mohammed]

More than a year, since I started this thread; more than a year since my last post in this thread.

How fares my Nikon? What about the frustrations I vented?

Since that time I have tried many cameras. Canon, Pentax K5, Sony, Micro-four thirds.

I never felt easy with anyone of them. Based on personal and purely subjective assessments.

A camera, to me at least, should be one with myself. The ergonomics, the investment in time and money already made in terms of lenses and getting used to the imperfections of my camera.

Weight..it feels heavier than a year ago.

But since then, it has traveled with me far and wide. I have cursed it, I have ignored it, banished it
to the farthest corner of my house. I have mistreated it, thrown it, taken it in/out of snow, rain
and tropical humidity.

The camera and its two lenses somehow came back to me. My companions when traveled called.
It has grown old. And so have I.
We have grown old together.

I am still frustrated, same reasons like a year ago multiplied.

But that's what friendship and companionship is. Give and take.

My Nikon has taken a lot from me and I from it.

But a better friend I have not found. Its true what they say. Good and true friends are hard to find. Hang on to the ones you have.

They are my world.

Regards.

 

[Jerome Marot]

How fares my Nikon? What about the frustrations I vented?

Since that time I have tried many cameras. Canon, Pentax K5, Sony, Micro-four thirds.

I never felt easy with anyone of them. Based on personal and purely subjective assessments.

A camera, to me at least, should be one with myself. The ergonomics, the investment in time and money already made in terms of lenses and getting used to the imperfections of my camera.

It has always been my experience that Canon and Minolta/Sony (Sony bought up Minolta a few years ago, but AF lenses are still compatible) had similar ergonomics and that Nikon had very different ergonomics (I don't know about Pentax or 4/3, µ4/3 is not a SLR system). If you are used to Canon or Minolta/Sony, Nikon will feel backwards and if you are used to Nikon, Canon or Minolta/Sony will feel backwards. I know photographers used to one or the other system and who can't stand the other camera ergonomics one way or the other. Interestingly, I also know a few people who do not mind, but they are relatively rare.

As to lenses, I am not so sure. I find that the compatibility between lenses for reduced size sensors and lenses for full size sensors or film is not that useful. With very exceptions, I think that lenses designed for full size sensors or film do not make much sense on reduced size sensors, since there are better, lighter and cheaper options with a more adapted focal length range.

Keeping this in mind and since you use a D700, I do not see how a different SLR system would suit you. Canon and Sony have ergonomics which you will probably dislike (since you are a Nikon user). Nikon reduced size sensor cameras (DX) will only make sense if you change many of your lenses for DX lenses.

I am not considering non SLR cameras, since you already found a quasi perfect option with the M9.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Jerome, thanks for our comments.

I have come to realize that, bar a few but not show stopping ' wants ' of mine, the D700 shall be with me for quite some time to come.

I do not have a M9. I could have bought it by selling 1-1/4 of some lenses I have; but could not
really find the value for the money being asked for it.

The D700 + zeiss 35 and 100mm
The Leica M8 + lux 35mm asph Or The Leica Film + lux 50mm asph,film.
Cell phone.
Medicines
Passport
CC
2 change of clothing

Chargers, 50 GB in cards , Macbook Air/Netbook

That's all I carry anywhere.
Buy toileteries, disposable local clothing at destination.

With this setup, I am ready to roll ( or fly ). Been doing it for quite some time.
Walk-on walk-off. Plane, train, ship, bus, taxi, hotel, walk.

Regards.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Sorry, I thought you had a M9. I remembered that you posted about it some time ago. I was probably confused.

 

[Erick Fromm]

I would love to have your d700. I have a d80. It;s nice and all but a d700 is way better! Your lucky to have one. Some day when I can afford it I will be moving up to fx. It's a lot better on lens selection too in the fx line. As soon as the new d4 comes out I will be looking for a d3x. I don't need the vid. I just need a price drop...lol....

 

[Kevin]

I think it still comes down to personal preference. I could never give up my Nikon. It just feels right in my hands. Yes, it's definitely heavier than a Canon, but it feels better built to me and I can't stand all the multi-function buttons canon has. Just used to a simple, fast interface. Canon makes great equipment these days with wonderful, fast optics. I imagine anyone who grew up with Canon would be very comfortable with their methodology and design, but I started with the Nikon F and Nikkormat and will see it through until I can't lift the heavy beast anymore.