I was encouraged to post this after I read Thom Hogan's "How Far We've Come". In his article Thom is debating what is a better choice: older dslr or newer mirror less dslrs. I was thinking about this for a long time too. Right now my spare camera is d300s and I also have Nex-5. Both of them are useful in some situations, neither of them is good for me as a spare camera. I need a camera that will be sufficient enough for traveling, could work as a backup body and not be a FF. In my case I'm thinking to sell both of them and get V1 + FT1. For some of You this might sound like a mad man idea, for me it's a solution. Please state Your opinions either for or against my point of view.
What I like about d300s is the reach, that's why I'm still keeping it.My prime camera (D3s) and my current set of lenses is not enough sometimes - the longest I can go on FX is 510/6.8 (N300/4+TC17) - 765mm/6.8 on DX. I also like the build quality and the ability to use PW minittl on it to control the flesh when I need a second body (mostly due to my unwillingness to switch lenses). What I really don't like about it is it's size. It's ok for a second body when I shoot events or animals, but it's not as handy when traveling. Moreover, the high iso, above 1600 (I'm spoiled by D3s), sucks. So does the speed, both AF and fps (I feel like it's even slower than D90 that I used to have or maybe once again I'm spoiled by D3s).
As I mentioned before, I also have NEX-5 with 16mm/2.8 lens. I bought this camera primarily for traveling. What I like about it is the image quality and weight&size. Unfortunately, I can't say this about the lens I have. The pancake lens simply sucks. Unusable wide open, needs to be stopped down at least to f4 to deliver good quality, not to mention annoying barrel distortion and short battery life. Apart from this is the way Sony treated it's customers. It wasn't even a period of 1 year when NEX-5 replacement was announced. So in a period of less then 12 months the camera value dropped by more than 50%. Add this to the lack of high quality lenses and You might know why I'm so unwilling about this camera. OMT, I have the sony nex to nikon f adapter, and it sucks w/o EFV.
On the other end, there is V1 (I'm not considering the J1 due to lack of EVF, which annoys me a lot in my sony cam). It looks like it has better iso than d300s, AF is fast and with FT1 I'll be able to use my whole set of lenses. Also my N300/4 will become 810mm/f4 or 1377mm/f6.8 - stunning, but... it lacks the regular hotshoe mount. I wouldn't be able to use my speedlights with it, not to mention PW (or maybe there gonna be a PW for Nikon 1:)).
So summing up, I have some choices:
- keep the stuff the way it is
- sell both of them and buy V1+FT1
- sell one of them and get a better replacement for the other
- find another solution, maybe x100, or some panasonic micro 4/3?
Anyway, any comments will be very appreciated.
DX or CX
(12 posts) (9 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Not trying to bash CX, and as you rightly pointed out in another thread, there is no one best time to pull the trigger on any technology as there is always something newer/better "a few months away"...
...but if you do decide to go CX, I would wait for Nikon's first major update to the V1 (V2, V1.5, whatever they will call it...). While there ar exceptions (Apple's iPad is one), in general I've found it doesn't pay off to be the earliest adopter of a new technology. CX is most definitely not going away. So if you decide that CX is the play, give Nikon a shot at improving the original release as you might any tech company.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Adamz I agree with your leanings towards CX over DX for the reasons you listed. I'm also reluctant to do something similar for the reasons you gave.
I agree with Shawnino that Nikon V2.0 or whatever will probably the smarter investment in the platform... let them work out any tech issues and maybe come up with a hotshoe solution of some kind.
For me, getting a Nikon CX over cameras from other manufacturers is an easy decision because of the FT1 (although there will probably be/probably already are similar adapters from other manufacturers - haven't got that far in my own research yet :)
Posted 1 year ago # -
From what I have seen so far, the best image quality obtainable from a CX device right now, is about the same as an entry level dSLR. That is not the result of any kind of exhaustive investigation, so it may be horribly wrong - but I don't think so.
It all depends on what you want... Considering what shawnino says (DO NOT BUY VERSION ONE OF ANYTHING), and as the NEX-7 along with the Carl Zeiss glass that can mount on it, could well be a killer of a combo (of course, also more expensive), but (probably) better than the V1/J1, I'd wait a short while and try options like the new Fuji alongside them all and count my pennies too ;-)
Posted 1 year ago # -
I shoot Mx :}
Posted 1 year ago # -
I dunno, I like CX, but I've invested too far into DX to go back. I feel if there was a professional bodied CX with external controls, I might be interested though.
The V1 doesn't have enough controls for me.
CX for you may not work- AF is somewhat crippled. I doubt you'll be able to track fast action with FX/DX lenses mounted on a V1 the same way you could with a D300s.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Adamz, you and I are in the same boat. I have a D300 which I will keep any way, and I will replace my D60 when Nikon start producing a V2 (or whatever) which will cure the V1's teething problems. I guess (hope ?) this successor or addition to the V1 could come out next September. Fingers crossed…
The result obtained by many owners of the V1 are simply amazing. See the numerous samples available on DPreview and other web sites. They have convinced me that CX will quickly improve and will eventually equal what one can get with a good DX SLR. As for lenses, in addition to the ones you can use in conjunction with the FT1, Nikon is about to produce a full range of CX lenses able to cover almost any situation. :)Posted 1 year ago # -
I'm finding myself caught in the middle of "body madness" as well and am really stopping to look at what I do the most of, what I need to accomplish what I need/want to do, and what could I change and/or add accomplish more. I am left with is a constant state of quandary with my desire to bounce between two shooting styles that could now utilize two different systems. On one side is the traditional that a good DSLR just can't be replaced. On the other is more "environmental" shooting where the need for high iso is a must, but you can get away with a "gritty" look. Up until now, smaller systems, even entry level DSLRs just couldn't match higher end DSLRs even at low ISOs let alone iso 800 and higher.
After shooting with the X100 for the last 8 months I have realized smaller systems can match DSLRs at high ISOs. M4/3rds don't come close to it, and Sony... well it's Sony with all it's shortcomings. With a D400 likely this year (and my upgrade time frame) and seeing the Fuji X-Pro 1, I'm starting to re-think how I look at camera systems. My D300 at iso 200 with lighting and shooting anything under iso 800, is more than enough with post to continue to satisfy my needs for tele, and studio situations. The "environmental" type shooting that I have been almost exclusively shooting now with my X100, would really bennifit from the lenses that the X-pro 1 will have and it would be smaller and more unobstructive than a large DSLR and still could utilize flash if I needed it. $2,000 for a D400 or $3000 for a Fuji X-pro1 (body, 3 lenses, flash). One could even throw in a D3s for $3,500ish.
Different avenue, goals, and considerations but the same events have led to my plight - Small systems have caught up to our standards of "capabilities" to create presentable images in most all settings.
I was at a local shop waiting for some prints to finish and I had an extra SD card and slapped it in a D7000, P7100, 5n, EP-3, Canon SD4500, and the V1. I shot the same dumpy shelf (very high contrast light) at the standard 100-3200 (full stops) with each camera. When I got home I loaded the images and used them to test print my printer. End result? Up to iso 400, you need a trained eye to see any real difference. Beyond that, the D7000 and 5n blew all of them away technically speaking and is what I would want to work with in any post production. With the rest, the thing I caught myself focusing almost completely on was what looked more pleasing at higher ISOs - not technical. The V1 and Canon really applied "in-camera post" that looked really good, but did not leave much to work with in post.
It left me starting to think Internal circuits and software have caught up and surpassed the current capabilities of sensors - right now. The drawback I really noticed with the V1, was the lack of "crispness" compared to the D7000 or my D300 files. It looked nice but was lacking when I printed the images. If you can stick to very, very low isos, it would be good, but in our real world, that just is not going to happen. I think that is the crutch with the smaller sensors.
To your Question Aaamz-
V1+FT1 - I have a hard time seeing this as an option except for birding in bright light.
Honestly every time I see almost any lens attached to the V1/J1 with the adapter, it just looks like a paint can with a deck of cards held to it with a toilet paper tube in-between. Fun gimic, but not realistic for "everyday" or event shooting.The lack of crisp images above 400, I would think adding a 300mm I think it would just be visually pleasing, but not very good technically. The samples I have seen seem to be more washed over than I would prefer. I just don't see CX being "there" for enough situations for me to be satisfied with it.
5n - Zeiss glass is a must and then it would be the closest to a DSLR quality that as a persnickety photog I would prefer. I would add better glass.
As a back-up? Neither. Situations where you need control are too many for me and I would rather have a D3100 than either of these. News style, the 5n - with better glass I would consider.
The other camera I actually liked for a "point N shoot" but not - Lumix DMC-GF3 with the kit lens.
Maybe all of that doesn't help - except for maybe knowing you are not the only one who is getting stuck between the new advances.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thanks guys for support :) glad to know that I'm not the only one with this problems :)
I've been thinking intensively today :) and I guess I'll decided to sell my d300s, as I'm not really happy with it. I might keep the nex, as I'm afraid that I don't get more than $350 for it and the cheapest Nikon 1 is almost double than that. I'll wait till nikon shows V2 and decide either to go this way or not, anyway this are two different types of cameras (d300s and nex5/nikon 1) that can't be exchanged - I mean backup camera and travel camera, at least in my case I can have a second body to do both of the jobs.
If the specifications are right, I guess I will get the d800 as my backup - it's a full frame with decent DX crop, will work good as a backup camera for both wildlife and events shots, maybe even a nice travel camera. Still it's gonna be smaller to travel with d800 than with d3s :), which is what I do right now.
Anyway, thanks once again.@bjrichus - I'm more than certain that I will not go the sony way again. Nex 7 is a nice camera, but this company is crossed for me after this what they did with nex 5 and nex 5n.
Posted 1 year ago # -
You might be surprised how much you can crop that 36mp beast especially without the AA filter. I can crop the D300 to about 8mp and get good wildlife shoots - do that with the 36mp and you would have over a 2x extension equiv. Throw the 1.7 and that is a hell of a distance! It will be fun to see what it can do.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yup I know, I'm cropping from d300s and I get decent results, with 36mpx it's gonna be a lot of fun... :)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Interesting discussion. I think there are a lot of advantages with the CX system. The biggest for me is size (for travel). But for now, as far as low-light is concerned, CX is not up to the level of DX. If you check the DXO ratings for the D300s and the V1 or J1, there is still quite a difference (787 vs 372). This means that the last 2 generations of DX sensors still perform better in high iso than the new CX cameras (even the D60 is better).
For me, low light shooting is very important. The only "compact" systems that I consider are the ones with a DX-sized sensor (X100, Sony NEX-5N, Sony NEX-C3).
Of course, for daylight photography, you don't see a big difference between sensor sizes.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
