[Reinier]

Hello fellow Photozoners,

 

Many of us have of had a Nikon or Canon (D)slr camera, a few have (had) another brand camera. But the two largest companies are (still) Nikon and Canon when it comes to Dslr camera's.

 

But I thought, let us assume you would start afresh and don't have a camera or lenses anymore. Then what would you do? Would you buy a Dslr and the same brand again or would you go for another system or brand? Like would you consider Sony, Samsung NX1 or whatever other camera there is and why? I ask this, because the other brands and other camerasystems have gotten so good, that there is plenty to choose from instead of the obvious choices.

 

Hope to hear from you.

 

 

Kind regards,


Reinier

[Jutta]

hallo Reinier,

having been a Canon user since the analog times I now consider buying another brand. It will probably be a Pentax DSLR. I know that the real purists think that is the Best, very underestimated. I like that it is not just plastic you are holding, the 100% viewfinder, all-weather camera and the relative limited choice of glases, which makes life easier.

If I tend for Canon it would only be for the D5.

Best regards

Jutta

[popo]

I have dabbled and moved around, and basically if starting again from nothing, I would end up buying the same system again: Canon DSLR.

 

Basically the mirrorless advantages are minor and insignificant. I wouldn't say no to smaller and lighter, but no mirrorless system is smaller and lighter enough to make a meaningful difference. Basically if a DSLR is too big for me to carry now, mirrorless would still be too big for me. Travelzoom compacts is about the next size down that would make a difference, but no mirrorless system with a decent zoom lens can get anywhere near that small.

 

Also other areas like tracking AF still lag far behind DSLR if you truly look at challenging situations, not the various tests which only tend to be with shorter focal lengths in bright sunlight only. Plus the lens choice is still poor outside the shorter focal lengths. There needs to be more "pro" lenses in the 300mm+ ball park. That is actual not equiv. focal length, regardless of the system. And once you go there, the size and weight difference is meaningless.

 

So about the only move I could make at all would be to go Nikon, but that is at best a sideways step. Nikon are more aggressive on full frame bodies which I'm less interested in than crop. Their lenses overall I think doesn't have as strong a lineup at longer focal lengths compared to Canon. Plus the D300 replacement doesn't exist.

[Guest]

Fuji - size, weight, IQ, and nearly universal adaptability.

 

Except when it comes to my paid sport shooting - for that, no one competes with Nikon (and Canon) for pro bodies and long glass.

 

(About me: I started Pentax & Konica-Minolta, moved to Nikon with the D3, briefly used a Sony NEX, and now am using Fuji and just got a too-cheap-to-pass-up Pentax. The Fuji sees the most usage. Except sports, which is Nikon.)

[Guest]

I have dabbled and moved around, and basically if starting again from nothing, I would end up buying the same system again: Canon DSLR.

 

Basically the mirrorless advantages are minor and insignificant. I wouldn't say no to smaller and lighter, but no mirrorless system is smaller and lighter enough to make a meaningful difference. Basically if a DSLR is too big for me to carry now, mirrorless would still be too big for me. 

 

My three- or four-lens Fuji kit weighs less than your Canon 7D. Yes, they are short focal lengths - which is where I mostly shoot. (Except sports!)

[popo]

I fully agree if you only shoot around normal, give or take, mirrorless can do it all in ever smaller packages. But that makes up perhaps <5% of my shooting.

 

My idea of a short lens is 300mm on APS-C. I prefer 400mm, and if I put up with the weight I go to 600mm. Again, this is with higher end lenses not something that merely on paper that can do it. Something mirrorless systems aren't really addressing at all, so they wont get any chance at my money until they do, and do it better than DSLR.

[Guest]

I fully agree if you only shoot around normal, give or take, mirrorless can do it all in ever smaller packages. But that makes up perhaps <5% of my shooting.

 

My idea of a short lens is 300mm on APS-C. I prefer 400mm, and if I put up with the weight I go to 600mm. Again, this is with higher end lenses not something that merely on paper that can do it. Something mirrorless systems aren't really addressing at all, so they wont get any chance at my money until they do, and do it better than DSLR.

 

Totally agree! I wouldn't look for a compact 400mm f/2.8 any time soon, although I really would love one.

[davidmanze]

   I'm waiting for the outcome of the 150-600's war, no doubt that the Sigma sport is going to be the winner, but heavy and not cheap, we're going to have to wait a little longer for the results of the contemporary, and a lot of reports coming in about the Tamron's AF coughing and spluttering! Which means DSLRs and OVFs.

 Nikon has it together with most things now whichever way you look at it in terms of bodies, FF is there in numbers, but their DX lacks a good buffer on the D7100, no doubt the D7200 will address that, but "that sharpness" is just great, I'm hooked on it right now!  Canon are struggling a bit with their lower DR and slightly noisier sensors still with LPFs, (I don't know why, sorry Popo), however they've the best lenses. 

 Mirror-less is great, modern radical, compact lightweight, but so far it's not nailed it, like the Sony 7 range for example, the S, the low light king, but only 12Mps no IS;  the 7R slow AF, 36 Mps no filter;  the 7II, 24Mps with filter and IS. in short now's not quite the time to go there, probably in two years when it will have fast AF 36Mps no filter, IS all in one model, with more lenses, it will be. I'm sure there's going to be a whole bunch of Sony shooters with five bodies two years from now who still only have five lenses.

 Sticking with Pentax K3, no FF for me and my lenses for general shooting/landscapes with it's in body SR, with Nikon D7100 for sports and action with it's greater range of third party lenses.

[popo]

Canon are struggling a bit with their lower DR and slightly noisier sensors still with LPFs, (I don't know why, sorry Popo), however they've the best lenses..

No need to be sorry, it is well known that Canon sensors don't quite match the dynamic range of many others. But at the same time, it is not a problem for most people in most uses. It only applies to low ISO, once you get above 400 or so pretty much all current sensors are about the same. It wasn't that long ago, a few years perhaps, when everyone's sensors had about the same dynamic range. And I think almost everyone did ok then. Of course, there will be some situations where some more might help, so it wouldn't be something I'd say no to. On a related note, Thom Hogan recently ran a write-in This is most likely spam content of his readers asking them what the biggest problems were people wanted to solve in photography. Dynamic range and MP count were two areas which did NOT make it significantly on the list, no matter how much they get discussed on various forums.

 

Oh, having slept on it a bit, I should revise my answer to the original question a bit. For my main longer focal length shooting, it is still Canon. But I forgot one thing. I've always wanted body IS with fast primes which Canon obviously don't do. It isn't something I need often, but I do need sometimes. That does provide a tangible benefit for me, and the times I use short fast primes are not the times I need continuous AF tracking, so mirrorless would fill the gap there. I have debated this before, but the only bodies offering it were the higher Olympus models, and combined with the lenses available it wouldn't be full frame equivalent in shallow depth of field. I forgot there is now a new solution which is a better fit: the Sony A7ii.

 

The old kit in question would be:

EF 35/2

Zeiss 2/50 makro

Sigma 50/1.4 A

EF 85/1.8

EF 135/2

EF 135SF

 

Now it isn't as simple as buy the equivalent Sony FE lenses, since they don't exist. 35/2.8 so I lose a stop there, and a 55/1.8, both with a blue badge.

 

A quick check on the roadmap suggests a 28/2.0, Ziess 35/1.4 so it will be silly money, 90/2.8 macro OSS. To be fair, I don't really use the longer end of the range really, so I would be ok to only get a 35-ish and 50-ish. I can't remember the last time I even mounted the 85 on anything, and the 135 I only use for astrophotography.

 

One other alternative is to get a EF-FE adapter with electronic aperture control and I keep my lenses. This needs more research to make sure body IS still works fully with such a combo. I know AF performance is stated as poor with these adapters, but MF isn't out of the question in this use especially if the Sony does a good job with focus peaking.

 

A quick look over the fence at Olympus and Panasonic doesn't show any fast primes there (in FF equiv.) so that kinda rules it out.

 

And after all that, I think it is too much effort and cost and I usually end up sticking with what I have.

[davidmanze]

That's the new deal with the Sony 7II, it's IS, that's given a whole new motivation with respect to adapters for existing system owners, however it's expensive for just occasional usage. In a year or so the Sony will be a good buy on the S/H market!

   This "SR" is Pentax's trump card really, though the models from the K5II onwards have their system crippled by implementing the giros to switch it off when panning and even reframing cuts it so you have to wait for it to refire up! Annoying!

 

Now I have Nikon it's so hard thinking of shooting with no stabilization, I have two lenses both VR, one kit 18-105 and a  70-300 4.5/5.6 bought "very cheaply" with a sticking AF, which I successfully repaired and a VR system which half works, (I can't get any real info on how to repair it and NIKON wants 300 euros)  I get the impression that the Nikon VRII system is fragile.