I think I'm bored with audio now.

[BobSherman]

Photography is a great money sink. I've probably spent about as much on lenses as on audio gear.

Distortion is a good thing.

 

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=527838&gclid=CL3ro-_Eq88CFQ9ahgodIDwNIg&Q=&ap=y&m=Y&c3api=1876%2C92051677562%2C&is=REG&A=details

[jabbr]

On the other hand, the Sony can literally use Leica M lenses. And Leica R too. Plus interesting Canon EF lenses, like TS-E and MP-E. If I were to buy a body in the near future, it would likely be some kind of Sony A7.

 

 

 

...

 

For me, not really an either or question. Recently when traveling, I shoot quite a bit of panorama on my daughter's Samsung tablet. But nothing beats the responsiveness of a proper camera.

 

That's important for me because I have EOS-L and some older Leica lenses ...

 

Kinda mulling Leica M vs SL vs Sony A7 ... and I think the Sony will probably win when I pull the trigger (I have 4/3 and image quality particularly in very low light just isn't there -- I refuse to use flash...)

[semente]

I've used my old Contax SLR lenses on the X-T1 and although they are a bit big when compared with Fujifilm's reduced-frame offers the pairing works surprisingly well.

[Tone Deaf]

On the other hand, the Sony can literally use Leica M lenses. And Leica R too. Plus interesting Canon EF lenses, like TS-E and MP-E. If I were to buy a body in the near future, it would likely be some kind of Sony A7.

 

No argument against going full frame. But I am more likely to take along that extra lens and use it if it weighs less than half of the equivalent full frame lens. The Olympus 40 - 150 mm 2.8 Pro (80-300 mm equivalent) weighs less than two pounds. The weight difference alone makes it so much more pleasurable to use, and with IS, one can dispense with the tripod. Then there is the cost difference.

 

But if you already have the full frame kit....

[mansr]

Distortion is a good thing.

 

Bring on the vacuum tube cameras.

[esldude]

But it is hard to put a 24 inch scope on that.

 

John S.

 

If you are talking telescope, it is hard to put a 24 inch scope almost anywhere. Though some star parties do bring them out in various incarnations.

[esldude]

There was no advance planning involved beyond brining the camera. That said, I obviously spent a few minutes finding the right spot and waiting for the right wave.

 

 

 

That's not bad at all. However, compared to my photo, everything is rather static and there's not as much contrast. It took a bit of curve tweaking to get both bright and dark areas to display well as an 8-bit JPEG.

 

Here's another one that couldn't have been shot on a phone:

That's a hand-held (with stabiliser) 1/6 s exposure tracking the moving boat.

 

As someone who tries those kind of shots with a DSLR, I am impressed. Nice photo.

 

The other looks impressive too once you put up the larger version of it. Do the sea gulls congregate to feast upon bashed surfers?

 

And dare I mention astro-photography if one has too much money for being absorbed by one hobby.

[gmgraves]

2000mm and 1/4000 sec? Should be piece of cake zooming in on one of those seagulls then...

 

 

Oh yeah. Piece of cake with this camera. It's perfect for pictures like this due to it's 2000 mm equivalent optical photo length. You could get a picture of the seagull's eye, hand-held if, you had a mind to do so! One has the choice of full auto mode, program mode, shutter preferred, aperture preferred or full manual, 20.1 megapixel CMOS sensor, an eye-level viewfinder (electronic, no mirror) and the entire camera weighs but 31 ounces. After years to toting around cameras like a Mamiya C330 and all it's lenses, or a Bronica and all its lenses, or a five pound Nikon F4 and half a dozen lenses for it as well as a Linhoff technical camera, and a 4X5 view camera or two, not to mention several full-size Nikon digital cameras, this Coolpix P900 is like a breath of fresh air! Great pictures from a camera that neither a burden nor compromised like your average point-and-shoot with no viewfinder, just a screen on the back that one cannot see in bright sunlight! Nice Shot, BTW!

[gmgraves]

Focal length and shutter speed are only two parameters out of many that matter. For a photo like the one above, you need a sensor with more dynamic range than you'll find in (most) compacts, or you'll lose detail in either the bright or the dark areas. The optical quality of the lenses also makes a big difference. For the mechanics of actually taking the picture, you need fast focus and low shutter lag, neither of which compacts are particularly good at although they've improved in recent years.

 

To avoid carrying heavy weights, I'll often pick a single lens and use it exclusively for a day. Of course that limits the possible shots, but it's also a fun challenge.

 

In the old "film days", I would often just carry my Leica M3 and its 50mm f1.4 Summilux, to save carrying all that bulk. Then I bought an Olympus XA and found that it had a superb 35mm f2.8 lens and took to carrying that with me. Much lighter and would fit easily in my pocket. But I missed the interchangeable lenses. So, I went back to the SLRs.

 

I think you will find that a Nikon Coolpix P900 will more than adequately address all of your concerns. If you still find the P900 too big and heavy (at 31 ounces, with lens) and could do with a 42X zoom (24-1000 mm equivalent) instead of an 83X (24-2000 mm) the Nikon Coolpix P530 weighs only 17 ounces all inclusive and operationally and performance-wise is, as far as I can see, essentially identical to the P900. It just lacks a few features like a swivel LCD screen on the back (big whoop!) and built-in Wi-Fi.

 

[mansr]

I think you will find that a Nikon Coolpix P900 will more than adequately address all of your concerns.

 

Concerns? I'm quite happy with what I've got.

[jabbr]

In the old "film days", I would often just carry my Leica M3 and its 50mm f1.4 Summilux, to save carrying all that bulk. Then I bought an Olympus XA and found that it had a superb 35mm f2.8 lens and took to carrying that with me. Much lighter and would fit easily in my pocket. But I missed the interchangeable lenses. So, I went back to the SLRs.

 

I think you will find that a Nikon Coolpix P900 will more than adequately address all of your concerns. If you still find the P900 too big and heavy (at 31 ounces, with lens) and could do with a 42X zoom (24-1000 mm equivalent) instead of an 83X (24-2000 mm) the Nikon Coolpix P530 weighs only 17 ounces all inclusive and operationally and performance-wise is, as far as I can see, essentially identical to the P900. It just lacks a few features like a swivel LCD screen on the back (big whoop!) and built-in Wi-Fi.

 

Love my M3 with that old 35 'lux that wasn't so sharp wide open but had that glow :) Leica M has never been very good for telephoto -- and I have a collection of Visoflex do-hickey's as well as R. Well Canon established itself with the 300/2.8. If you are doing sports photography its a big deal ... Canon could never hold a candle to Leica in wide but who knowns these days...

 

In any case these new sensors up the game in needed lens quality and while their ISO sensitivities is also much greater, I like to shoot wide open for the visual effects, and so a 35/2.8 not the same pictures as 35/1.4. My main issue with 4/3 is that the entire image is in focus and you lose the "3D" effects. This is even more apparent with large format but that is a dying art...

 

But maybe the iPhone makes the Coolpix less attractive? As time went on I found myself using the 70-210/2.8 zoom frequently and otherwise primes but that just my preference.

[Jud]

I agree entirely.

My favourite subject is street photography and responsiveness is crucial...

 

 

Beautiful photo.

[gmgraves]

Concerns? I'm quite happy with what I've got.

 

Looks like you expressed quite a few "concerns" to me:

 

"Focal length and shutter speed are only two parameters out of many that matter. For a photo like the one above, you need a sensor with more dynamic range than you'll find in (most) compacts, or you'll lose detail in either the bright or the dark areas. The optical quality of the lenses also makes a big difference. For the mechanics of actually taking the picture, you need fast focus and low shutter lag, neither of which compacts are particularly good at although they've improved in recent years."

[jabbr]

I found the A7's shutter too noisy but the camera felt really good in my hand.

But I'm happy with the performance of the APS-sized sensor and prefer the smaller, lighter bodies that are built around it.

 

R

 

So ... some of these issues are what holds me back from taking the plunge... Did you try the A7 or the newer A7R-II whose shutter is quieter ... or even the silent shutter mode which is entirely electronic? I'm waiting for the A9r to see the light of day and then will probably make a decision...

[semente]

So ... some of these issues are what holds me back from taking the plunge... Did you try the A7 or the newer A7R-II whose shutter is quieter ... or even the silent shutter mode which is entirely electronic? I'm waiting for the A9r to see the light of day and then will probably make a decision...

 

I tried a friend's A7 and found the shutter noise too obtrusive.

The 7 mk2 I tried at Curry's and it didn't seem any different but as you've mentioned there's always the electronic shutter.

 

I was experimenting with the X-T1's electronic shutter for the last two outings and had no problems with it.

I don't think I'll have a problem using it permanently in the future, it won't make me lose more photos than the AF system.

 

R

[mansr]

Looks like you expressed quite a few "concerns" to me:

 

"Focal length and shutter speed are only two parameters out of many that matter. For a photo like the one above, you need a sensor with more dynamic range than you'll find in (most) compacts, or you'll lose detail in either the bright or the dark areas. The optical quality of the lenses also makes a big difference. For the mechanics of actually taking the picture, you need fast focus and low shutter lag, neither of which compacts are particularly good at although they've improved in recent years."

 

Those are factors that influence the quality of pictures you can get. I never said I was unhappy with my kit.

[gmgraves]

Those are factors that influence the quality of pictures you can get. I never said I was unhappy with my kit.

 

And I never inferred that you were unhappy with your kit. You raised some concerns about what you called "point-and-shoot" cameras in general and I addressed them with regard to the Nikon Coolpix P900.

[semente]

The superzoom point and shoot topology does have it's limitations since it uses a small sensor with an ultra wide range lens.

It's up to the end user to determine whether those limitations are significantly taxing or negligible.

 

R

[Ajax]

I think I'm bored with audio now. I mean, really, what are we getting all worked up over?

 

Hi Halley,

 

The fact that the last 57 posts were about photography and not audio demonstrates that your not the only one. Some amazing shots though.

 

Personally, what I find boring is the constant arguing along purely "objective" or purely "subjective" lines between two individuals that you know are set in their ways and are not going to budge. I avoid those threads when I see the patterns emerging, which is unfortunate as there are lot of excellent contributors at CA that get lost in the noise.

 

The reality is that measuring and listening are both critical to the process of producing good audio. A formula one car is designed using measurements and then the driver takes it for a few laps and asks for the car to be "tweaked" to his liking. More measurements and tweaking follow until the car is customised to suit his particular skill set.

 

Similarly a winemaker will constantly measure the TA, PH, Sugar, SO2 and temperature levels during the wine making process but at the end of the day whether or not he has produced a good wine will be judged on the wine's Aroma, taste and texture, aftertaste etc. by individual "experts" whose judgement will be coloured by their own personal preferences and palate.

 

And so it goes.

[accwai]

Oh yeah. Piece of cake with this camera. It's perfect for pictures like this due to it's 2000 mm equivalent optical photo length. You could get a picture of the seagull's eye, hand-held if, you had a mind to do so! [...]

 

I would imagine 2000mm would be rather difficult to handle. The following is only 1400mm and it's already quite a handful:

 

[accwai]

Love my M3 with that old 35 'lux that wasn't so sharp wide open but had that glow :)

 

Yes, that's a very special one. My dad gave me all his M stuff when he's downsizing. Used this lens a lot when I was much younger than I am now If I were to get a Sony A7, I'll get a Leica M adapter for this one alone. On the other hand, the Canon 35/1.4 isn't too shabby either:

 

 

Canon could never hold a candle to Leica in wide but who knowns these days...

 

The 17 TS-E is great:

 

But people are saying the 12-24 is even greater, believe it or not...

[accwai]

Beautiful photo.

 

Indeed. But check out his website. There are is lot more where it comes from. Great work!

[gmgraves]

I would imagine 2000mm would be rather difficult to handle. The following is only 1400mm and it's already quite a handful:

 

 

 

Wow, That's impressive. I've never tried photographing the moon, but, the image stabilization on the Coolpix P900 is VERY good. I'll have to try it sometime.

 

What kind of lens? Looks like a picture through an astronomical telescope.

[gmgraves]

The superzoom point and shoot topology does have it's limitations since it uses a small sensor with an ultra wide range lens.

It's up to the end user to determine whether those limitations are significantly taxing or negligible.

 

R

 

As someone who has owned and used some of the best cameras going back more than 50 years, I can attest that, at least, with Nikon's high-end Coolpix cameras with wide zoom ranges (42, 62, and 83X) those limitations are negligible. And truth to tell, no 35mm or smaller digital sensor size gives as good an image as Panatomic X or good 'ol Kodachrome. But then film quality is the goal, and we aren't there yet with still photography. The sensors and the lenses are getting better. Also, the world's finest resolution and the world's best lenses won't do one any good if the camera system is such a bulky pain-in-the-ass that one will leave it at home more than one is apt to carry it with them. That was my dilemma. I'll gladly give up a little image quality to have a versatile camera that I will take with me most anywhere. The Coolpix P900 with it's 24 mm to 2000 mm equivalent focal length in ONE lens and it's fast shutter speed, essentially zero latency and it's variable DIN equivalent (100 - 6400) and 4608 X 3456 resolution fits my current needs for a camera to a degree that I wouldn't have thought possible a few years ago. – and they keep getting better all the time!

[gmgraves]

Yes, that's a very special one. My dad gave me all his M stuff when he's downsizing. Used this lens a lot when I was much younger than I am now If I were to get a Sony A7, I'll get a Leica M adapter for this one alone. On the other hand, the Canon 35/1.4 isn't too shabby either:

 

 

 

 

The 17 TS-E is great:

 

But people are saying the 12-24 is even greater, believe it or not...

 

Nice pictures. One thing that has always bothered me about Leicas, especially LeicaFlex, is the fact that soon after their first foray into reflex cameras Leica started to buy their camera guts from somebody else. For years it was Minolta, and lately it is Panasonic. In the Minolta days, Leica bought the finished lens elements for each focal length from Minolta and then more finely polished and coated the lenses and mounted them in their own mechanical housings. Ditto with the camera innards. They would buy the interior components of Minolta's top-of-the-line model and then further machine them to Leica tolerances and then assemble them in LeicaFlex bodies. Now there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I always thought that paying 3X to 7X for a Minolta SLR and Minolta lenses kind of left a bad taste in my mouth. I was used to the absolute quality and precision of Leica's in-house designed and built rangefinder cameras and real Leitz glass.