Collecting Fluff about a new DSLR

Home Forums Techie Talk Collecting Fluff about a new DSLR

This topic contains 3 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  Hywel 1 year, 2 months ago.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #27093

    Sablesword
    Participant

    The “Collecting Fluff” set has inspired (or provoked) me into whining here about my dithering over a new camera.

    I still have my Nikon D90 that I bought several years back, and the prudent thing is to just keep using it. It’s old but it still works well. I’m not hard on cameras the way Hywell is, and in any case I’d be keeping it as a backup.

    The other prudent thing would be to get a Nikon D7100 or D7200. They’re the obvious upgrade “on paper,” and I know I could get along with a D7100 because I rented one for Fetishcon this year. But it still feels “meh.”

    Going full-frame would be a “glorious overkill” option, especially since I’d go straight for the D810, with 36MP (vs 12MP for my D90). But it *would* be overkill. Worse, I’d have issues with lenses. So short of coming into an unexpected fortune, I’m going to stick with DX/crop sensor.

    Finally, Nikon’s new D500 is tempting. Very tempting, mostly for the ergonomics. But also for its high ISO performance despite having a crop sensor (which ties back to the “collecting fluff” set) and for the autofocus system. But it has a number of minor drawbacks, and although most of which can be finessed, the fact that it has “only” 21 Megapixels can’t be. If it had 24MP like the D7100/D7200, I’d have already bought one. But this voice in the back of my head is warning me that if I get a D500, then I’ll miss those extra few megapixels.

    So I’m dithering.

    #27097

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    I noticed the change going from the 13 megapixels of the Canon 5D mark I up to the 31 megapixel Hasselblad, as you’d damn well expect from a system that cost that much.

    The step up to the Canon 7D at 18 megapixels was much less marked, especially as those pixels were smaller and so the noise performance wasn’t so great.

    The difference between the 5DI (13 megapixels) and 5DII (21 megapixels) was very noticeable. The difference between the 7D (18) and 5DIi (21) was negligible so long as you had enough light and decent lenses.

    So to be honest I doubt you’d notice the difference between 21 and 24 megapixels. My guess is that you’re more likely to start noticing the limitations of the lenses and the rest of the system rather than the pure pixel count. The D500 is very well-regarded as far as I can see (although I admit my ignorance to matters Nikon is almost total, it’s well-spoken of).

    I’d be wary of camera with no AA filter (which I believe the D7200 lacks, is that right?). I find it a bit of a pain with the Hasselblad- it gives bad Moire on some fabrics. It’s not such an issue on the Sony because of the slightly higher resolution (and the fact that I often shoot the Sony with shallower depth of field, which limits the Moire just to those bits of fabric which happen to be in focus). People I know with higher res medium format say it’s largely a non-problem for them. So I think there may be a particular “sour spot” around 31 megapixels MF, which is quite close to the pixel pitch of the D7200.

    I’d take 21 sharply-focussed megapixels from a camera with good ergoonmics over a 24 megapixel image from a camera with lesser focussing and ergonomic niceness, myself.

    Of course I’m incapable of actually making that choice when there’s 42 megapixel IBIS monsters like the A7RII around (despite atrocious ergonomics). But of course this is my business- I’d probably make very different choices if it was still my hobby.

    Cheers, Hywel

    #27098

    Sablesword
    Participant

    None of Nikon’s current 24MP DX (crop) cameras have AA filters, and the D500 doesn’t either. So that’s a non-issue. In any case the pixel pitch of a 24MP DX would be the same as a 54MP full frame, or a medium format with, um, “lots.” 🙂

    FWIW, a google search shows the Sony A7RII with a pixel pitch of 4.51 microns, the D500 with a pitch of 4.22 microns, and the D7200 with a pitch of 3.92 microns.

    #27099

    Hywel
    Keymaster

    Argh, slip in the mental arithmetic. At those pixel pitches it should be fine- as I said the A7RII doesn’t seem to have a regular problem but the Hasselblad does with (looks it up carefully this time to be sure!) 6.8 micron pitch. Of course, that explains why Nikon have left AA filters off the latest range of APS-C 20+ megapixel cameras. And why no-one is talking about it as an issue on 100 megapixel backs.

    Serves me right for opening my mouth on a thread about Nikons when I know damn all about them, and not bothering to check my quick division in my head! Apologies!

    It was interesting to think what I would buy/have stuck with if this was still my hobby rather than my job. The answer came surprisingly easy: a 5D Mark II, which I’d now be thinking of upgrading to a 5D Mark IV. To my mind you just can’t beat the versatility and bang for the buck of those mid-range dSLRs as all-rounders. I’m sure the Nikon equivalents have that same great value proposition.

    The only reason I don’t own one is that my professional needs cover little bits of that capability a little better than the 5DII/IV. The Hasselblad is a sharper, higher resolution, better studio/sunlight camera, the A7RII is a better low-light camera and light-weight camera for the mountains, and the RED and Panasonic GH4 are a bit better at video. But a general purpose middle of the range dSLR can do all of those things very capably. I probably ought to pick up a lightly-used 5DII or 5DIII as owners are probably switching to the IV, and I have a sack of Canon lenses!

    Cheers, Hywel

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  Hywel.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  Hywel.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.