|
Small, sharp walkaround/landscape kit
|
01-24-2011, 12:42 PM
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1295860225' post='5722']
D7000 + 18-200mm VR [/quote] Are you serious? the 18-200... It is not sharp at all at 200mm, and 18mm is not wide enough. Weird, very weird recommendation. 16-85mm VR i would have understood.
01-24-2011, 12:50 PM
The Pentax K5 is too expensive, the D7000 too big and heavy.
Not being very impressed by the Sony A55 (small viewfinder, but especially... EVF bleeeh, overheating issuses due to combination of live view and SSS, ghost lights from dusk till dawn), That then leaves 3 options I can think of... The Sony A580 with Zeiss 16-80mm lens, Canon 550D/T2i with Canon 15-85mm IS USM and Nikon D3100 with 16-85mm VR. If brand did not play a role, I think the Canon would be most attractive to me with its live view implementation, mirror lock up and great LCD. I think it also might have the best view finder of the 3, not sure. But all 3 should be very capable smaller DSLRs, so focus on those 3 as they should fit your requirements "best". 
01-24-2011, 01:12 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1295873439' post='5729']
the D7000 too big and heavy. [/quote] Is it? I find it quite a bit smaller and less heavy than a D700. Unless I really wanted the smallest camera possible, I'd certainly prefer it over the D3100. Perfect travel kit would obviously be a mFT camera (with EVF, like GH2). However, there's no one-lens solution covering the requested focal range (two-lens, though). However, the rumor mill suggests there's something coming that might suit these needs ... -- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
01-24-2011, 01:25 PM
D7000 is just 90g. heavier then the Sony 580 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
 ' /> and together with a 16-85VR it is below the 1200g limit. I'd assume budget is more of a constraint here ? ..if not, then the D7000 is, I think, as fitting as the Sony/Zeiss combo. Also, it would be an excellent 2nd body for the D700.
01-24-2011, 02:11 PM
[quote name='wojtt' timestamp='1295875549' post='5732']
D7000 is just 90g. heavier then the Sony 580 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> and together with a 16-85VR it is below the 1200g limit. I'd assume budget is more of a constraint here ? ..if not, then the D7000 is, I think, as fitting as the Sony/Zeiss combo. Also, it would be an excellent 2nd body for the D700.[/quote] The Sony A580 is 599 grams. The Canon 550D is 530 grams. The Nikon D3100 is 505 grams. The Nikon D7000 is 780 grams The D7000 is very clearly in a different size and weight category (that of the Canon EOS D60 (755 grams) and Pentax K5 (748 grams)).
01-24-2011, 02:47 PM
D7000 is 690 grams w/o battery. Same specs given for the Sony - 599 grams. Not THAT much of a difference in weight terms, I agree the size is indeed diffeent (3100 and 7000) and yet it's up to the user which body ergonomics seem better. Since Dhazeghi's weight limit is 1200 for the kit, the D7000/16-85 fits. Just that.
01-24-2011, 03:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2011, 03:09 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='wojtt' timestamp='1295880477' post='5736']
D7000 is 690 grams w/o battery. Same specs given for the Sony - 599 grams. Not THAT much of a difference in weight terms, I agree the size is indeed diffeent (3100 and 7000) and yet it's up to the user which body ergonomics seem better. Since Dhazeghi's weight limit is 1200 for the kit, the D7000/16-85 fits. Just that. [/quote] Sorry, dpreview gives 599 grams for the A580 with battery. That is why I have always (since the introduction of the A580) thought it was 599 grams. Dpreview probably got their info from Sony, who actually states this on their .com website: Weight (Approx.) : * Approx. 24 oz (679g) (excl battery & media) * Approx. 21.1 oz (599g) (w/battery & media) Awesome, a camera that is lighter with battery than without. Lovely, when camera manufacturers put wrong specs on their websites (Sony and Nikon)...
01-24-2011, 06:40 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1295881699' post='5737']
Dpreview probably got their info from Sony, who actually states this on their .com website: Weight (Approx.) : * Approx. 24 oz (679g) (excl battery & media) * Approx. 21.1 oz (599g) (w/battery & media) Awesome, a camera that is lighter with battery than without. Lovely, when camera manufacturers put wrong specs on their websites (Sony and Nikon)... [/quote] It is no mistake that the camera with battery and media is lighter than the camera without both. You must have missed where Sony announced their new helium ion battery and gravity canceling media. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
01-25-2011, 10:47 AM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1295872933' post='5728']
Are you serious? the 18-200... It is not sharp at all at 200mm, and 18mm is not wide enough. Weird, very weird recommendation. 16-85mm VR i would have understood. [/quote] 16-85mm VR is definitely sharper. But when it comes to a travel combo, 18-200mm zoom range would do it I suppose. I personally don't believe in the idea of "magic combo for all purposes". To me it sounds like "I want to shoot with a flexible zoom range not to miss anything, and the optical/image quality has the second priority"... Thus the recommendation... Think of a nice bird you missed to capture because of a shorther FL, would you say "ok I missed it but it was going to be softer with this lens than my 85mm" Serkan
01-25-2011, 03:23 PM
Indeed no magic combos out there. There's always a decision to be made about the trade-offs - either more gear (universality and quality) or portability.. In the latter case it all about our most useful range and a minimum IQ that we would want. 18-200 is not so brillant over 100 and I'd prefer having the extra 2mm at the wide end, because it is more useful in travel photography and not just sharper. For the occasional close-up a 55-200 serves better then the 18-200 and is cheap and lighweight enough to add it to the setup..
I'm facing a similar dilemma myself and I just can't make my mind whether to take the 16-85 or the 16-35 f4 (ruggedness and more weight versus better range and slower speed). Time to toss a coin ? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |
