# nikon and canon are discontinuing slr lenses and cameras.



## inferno (Feb 11, 2022)

how do you do, fellow insurrectionists. 








dont know if you knew but both canon and nikon are discontinuing **** at a fast pace now. they are both discontinuing lenses and bodies. i think all 3000 series dlsrs are gone. maybe the 5000 series ones too. d500 gone for sure.

but whats worse is that the lenses are going away. and i mean ***, nikon is still producing lenses from the 1970ies. about 5-6 of them. the old ai-s series (manual focus, best mechanics). but now somehow they are starting to cull semi new lenses. 









Canon is Additionally Discontinuing a Large Number of EF Lenses: Report


More than 20 lenses are reportedly no longer being produced.




petapixel.com












Canon Has Discontinued All But Nine EF Prime Lenses: Report


From 21 to just nine.




petapixel.com













 Nikon DX DSLRs and Lenses Disappearing or Not Being Restocked


Multiple Nikon DX DSLRs are not in stock, and some have not been for months.




petapixel.com












Nikon Has Discontinued Several F-Mount Lenses: Report


DSLR support is slowly fading.




petapixel.com













Nikon Discontinues the D500, a Triumph of the DSLR Era


Farewell to a beast of a DSLR.




petapixel.com





and in reality its probably a lot worse than this. just see what you can actually buy today...

i guess they went all in on mirrorless. but to be honest mirrorless sucks ass if you have a good dslr. 

i mean mirrorless is what they are making now. and i have a mirrorless camera. the fuji x-h1, the only pro body fuji apsc. this was a 1800$ body when new. 
its still a joke compared to my d500. it feels like a toy in comparison. it is a toy. and the battery runs dry very very fast while with the d750 and d500 i have i can shoot like 1000 shots. this technology is a ****ing joke. and fuji has made mirrorless for about 10 years longer than canon or nikon... and its still a ****ing joke compared to a good dslr. 

so yeah just wanted to inform you that if you need any of the good nikon/canon lenses for your slr (factory new). now is the time to buy them because very very soon these will be gone. GONE!


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 11, 2022)

dunno man Leica seems to do ok with mirrorless. so does Sony.

also lol at that image 7 dudes but only 1 haircut


----------



## inferno (Feb 11, 2022)

tcmx3 said:


> dunno man Leica seems to do ok with mirrorless. so does Sony.
> 
> also lol at that image 7 dudes but only 1 haircut




hehehe they have the approved fbi haircut (and watch). just like in north korea. there is only 20 approved haircuts in north korea. its that or execution basically. 

--------------

leica hasn't discontinued jack **** lately. but who the f shoots with leicas. the problem here is that they are discontinung the most classic lenses of all time. just like that "because mirrorless is better", simply pissing on their old customers. and these are customers that have been shooting with this stuff for up to 50 years. they have bought into the system. but hey, its a good way to commit financial suicide. when you simply lose 90% of your old customers. way to ****ing go! 

---------------

not all people want mirroless cameras. i dont. i think they suck ass. all of them. i think the whole concept sucks ass. 
these are toys. sad to say it but dslrs are tools. mirrorless cams are toys. you just have to pick one up and fiddle around for about 5 seconds to realize this. 
its some sad ****.


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 11, 2022)

inferno said:


> hehehe they have the approved fbi haircut (and watch). just like in north korea. there is only 20 approved haircuts in north korea. its that or execution basically.
> 
> --------------
> 
> ...



my pfp on this site for like 5 years was Leica because I do.

you're not being pissed on mate they just want to go a different direction. maybe this is your chance to try something new. there's a lot better lenses out there than Nikon and Canon IMO


----------



## inferno (Feb 11, 2022)

tcmx3 said:


> my pfp on this site for like 5 years was Leica because I do.
> 
> you're not being pissed on mate they just want to go a different direction. maybe this is your chance to try something new. there's a lot better lenses out there than Nikon and Canon IMO



yeah i kinda understood that. they want everybody to move to mirrorless. the thing is that canon has not produced a significantly better camera noise-wise/dynamic range-wise than the 5dmk4, and nikon has not produced a better one than the d750. and those were released in 2014 and 2016. this market is a joke. Nikon D750 vs Canon EOS R5 vs Nikon Z7II

i actually did change to something new. the fuji x-h1 and guess what. it sucks ass. just like all mirrorless cameras. and to make it worse, this is the best one fuji ever made. and they have been at it for 10 years more than both canon and nikon.

---------

while there might be better lenses purely optically than nikon or canon. they are built like a joke in comparison. i mean most tamron lenses are much much better than nikons or canons, optically. but the canon L and nikons gold ring premium ones are rock solid build quality, its all metal. and if you "buy once, cry once" this i what you want.

i have a fuji macro. very good optically. 1300$ or so. but the whole crap is made out of plastic. really?? plastic?
people are starting to accept **** mechanical quality, paying premium prices, thats the problem. they somehow think this is normal.


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 11, 2022)

inferno said:


> i actually did change to something new. the fuji x-h1 and guess what. it sucks ass. just like all mirrorless cameras. and to make it worse, this is the best one fuji ever made. and they have been at it for 10 years more than both canon and nikon.
> 
> ---------
> 
> while there might be better lenses purely optically than nikon or canon. they are built like a joke in comparison. i mean most tamron lenses are much much better than nikons or canons, optically. but the canon L and nikons gold ring premium ones are rock solid build quality, its all metal. and if you "buy once, cry once" this i what you want.



well I could have told you Fuji sucks.

also wrt build quality mate you're looking in the wrong direction. have you tried the Zeiss Otus stuff? it's nearly cine quality. Leica too. the only stuff Nikon/Canon have that can compete are the super-teles which aren't practical lenses.

why dont you rent a Leica S3 and some lenses? medium format has always been the 'serious' format anyway.


----------



## inferno (Feb 11, 2022)

tcmx3 said:


> well I could have told you Fuji sucks.
> 
> also wrt build quality mate you're looking in the wrong direction. have you tried the Zeiss Otus stuff? it's nearly cine quality. Leica too. the only stuff Nikon/Canon have that can compete are the super-teles which aren't practical lenses.
> 
> why dont you rent a Leica S3 and some lenses? medium format has always been the 'serious' format anyway.



all the zeiss are manual focus only. and it simply wont work for me. tried if for several years. even had a split image microprism focusing screen installed. 
speeds things up. but still, this is for studio use only imo. 

nikon an canon can compete with very functional autofocus, weatherproof, IS/VR, and some of the lenses are the very best ever made in the focal range. 
and they have the build quality. 

not a leica guy. leica for me is esoteric toys for rich people. i dont mind paying 2 grand for a lens. but then it has to perform, and be durable. i'd say durability and ruggedness are high on my list. and no fantasy prices. i mean if i was rich i could simply design these lenses myself in OSLO and ZEMAX and then have someone grind the elements to spec. and then have a machine shop make the metal parts. then have someone do the AR coatings. but hey. i can get ultra good stuff over the counter today. so why even bother.


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 11, 2022)

inferno said:


> not a leica guy. leica for me is esoteric toys for rich people. i dont mind paying 2 grand for a lens. but then it has to perform, and be durable. i'd say durability and ruggedness are high on my list. and no fantasy prices. i mean if i was rich i could simply design these lenses myself in OSLO and ZEMAX and then have someone grind the elements to spec. and then have a machine shop make the metal parts. then have someone do the AR coatings. but hey. i can get ultra good stuff over the counter today. so why even bother.



sounds like you've never used them if that's your opinion of them  

durable? performant? my 100 APO macro elmarit feels like it could survive a drone strike and it still outresolves the vast, vast majority of modern lenses.

Im gonna be 100% honest with you, this all sounds a lot like a you problem. you cant get on with the excellent mirrorless systems that do exist. you cant get along with manual focus. etc.

some of the very best ever in the focal range? you have a 200/1.8L? because that's the last interesting lens either of these companies made IMO


----------



## Keith Sinclair (Feb 12, 2022)

Like others here I liked taking pictures. These days just guessing 90% of people use their phones. You used to see tourist esp. Japanese with expensive cameras. Now hardly any carry cameras. I always carry my phone in cargo shorts pocket. 

Have some nice cameras & lens haven't used them in a while. I would imagine camera shops are hurting. Unless things are different than here. I know a good photographer he made his best coin taking Japanese wedding pictures with some very good lens. It was big business in Hawaii before Covid changed everything. 
They love pictures in beautiful locations.


----------



## Luftmensch (Feb 12, 2022)

inferno said:


> not all people want mirroless cameras. i dont. i think they suck ass. all of them. i think the whole concept sucks ass.
> these are toys. sad to say it but dslrs are tools. mirrorless cams are toys. you just have to pick one up and fiddle around for about 5 seconds to realize this.
> its some sad ****.





inferno said:


> and guess what. it sucks ass. just like all mirrorless cameras.



True; it is fair to say not everybody wants mirrorless cameras. Beyond that it is complete hyperbole to call them toys. They are as much a tool as DSLRs. 

In fact their future is brighter than DSLRs. DSLRs have gone about as far as they can go feature wise. The mirror _is_ a limitation. Modern mirrorless do not have mirror slap. You can view your actual DoF through the EVF... You can practically see in the dark through the EVF.... and you can get ridiculous burst rates without viewfinder blackout. All impossible or difficult with DSLR.

The only thing I can really think of in favour of DSLRs is battery life and the viewfinder.... but the viewfinder argument has always seemed asenine to me. It is just a bloody framing device (plus some meta data)... You view your photos in print or on a big screen...

 each to their own....


----------



## Luftmensch (Feb 12, 2022)

tcmx3 said:


> Zeiss Otus stuff? it's nearly cine quality. Leica too.



Voigtlander if you dont want to pay Zeiss or Leica prices. Their recent APO lenses are outstanding!



tcmx3 said:


> 100 APO macro elmarit





Dont let the internet know. Best kept secret for a hot while... Exceptional lens that!


----------



## Bobby2shots (Feb 12, 2022)

I bought the Nikon "F:2.8 Holy Trinity"a while back, along with the Nikkor 200-500 f;5.6. and went with a D-500 body and a D-810. I haven't yet decided which primes I'll go with, and I'm torn over mirrorless vs DSLR. I was hoping to find a new version of the 200mm f:4 macro, and a decent 20 or 24mm wide-angle prime that I can use with filters.(I'm a fan of Atilio Ruffo's long-exposure landscape work), and the 105mm f:1.4 for portraits. Covid has put a hard stop on my plans of getting back into photography. I've also got a Panasonic (Leica lens) FZ-1000,,, a Sony RX100-mk.III,,, a Canon P-900. Three Gitzo Systematic tripods and a Gitzo Traveller,, tons of LED lighting,,flashes,,, c-stands,,, boom stand,, reflectors, and it's all sitting there unused,,,,, and depreciating.

Sure, I'd love to have the new Z-9 and some beautiful light-weight mirrorless lenses,,, but I'll be damned if I'm going to start over from scratch.


----------



## MarcelNL (Feb 12, 2022)

A friend of me changed to Sony Alpha a few years ago when Canon and Nikon did not bring much new stuff to the table anymore , think he now has the A7. He does pro work (mainly art and music photography), what I see there is more versatile than what I'm familiar with from Canon.


----------



## rstcso (Feb 12, 2022)

I too own Nikon's D750, bought at my local camera shop on release date, and the D500. I loved shooting portraiture, architectural, and just walking around taking candid shots of people and places. Most of my gear hasn't been used the past few years, and I've been seriously thinking about selling, but the prices are so depressed, it's, well... depressing. The most I've done in the past few months with the gear was cycle the batteries so they didn't die before their time. 

As I get older and nearing retirement, I've been trying to figure out what I wanted to do with my life. All week I've been planning a road trip, leaving in a few hours, to a large, Mom-and-Pop kayak shop to look at fishing kayaks. Having grown up fishing, but not having done so for over 20 years, this seems like a fun way to close my circle of life, getting much-needed exercise in the process.

This thread has got me thinking about getting out and doing some shooting instead of selling. Maybe all I really need to do to keep busy and active is go upstairs and pull out my camera gear.


----------



## Bobby2shots (Feb 12, 2022)

Luftmensch said:


> True; it is fair to say not everybody wants mirrorless cameras. Beyond that it is complete hyperbole to call them toys. They are as much a tool as DSLRs.
> 
> In fact their future is brighter than DSLRs. DSLRs have gone about as far as they can go feature wise. The mirror _is_ a limitation. Modern mirrorless do not have mirror slap. You can view your actual DoF through the EVF... You can practically see in the dark through the EVF.... and you can get ridiculous burst rates without viewfinder blackout. All impossible or difficult with DSLR.
> 
> ...



I find shutter blackout issues really depend on what type of shooter you are. If you're shooting video, or fast action sports,,, shooting birds-in-flight,,,even fashion shoots, then yeah, it can be a major issue. Not so much if you're doing portraits or landscape photography.

Personally, if I was starting over from scratch and had to make that mirrorless/DSLR choice, I'd probably go mirrorless,,,. My main concerns there are mostly about rapid obsolesence in the mirrorless world; there's always a newer/faster sensor/processor available, and your "current" model is no longer in vogue. That may be OK for a money-making pro, or someone with deeeeep pockets, but as a casual hobbyist, my arms are getting short these days.


----------



## gaijin (Feb 12, 2022)

Well.. for my type of photography, the only thing negative I have to say about the current state of mirrorless is the battery life - everything else works as well or better for me.

I've never been a pro but an intermittently commited amaterur. I started with SLR:s in the mid 1990:ies, Nikon since 1997 or so, and got my first Nikon DSLR in 2007. I've upgrades a few times since, but I recently sold my D850 and most of my Nikon lenses and focus on Fujifilm - it works great for me. If I would have made the switch today I might have switched to Nikon mirrorless instead but the Fujifilm is small and works well for me.


----------



## Bobby2shots (Feb 12, 2022)

MarcelNL said:


> A friend of me changed to Sony Alpha a few years ago when Canon and Nikon did not bring much new stuff to the table anymore , think he now has the A7. He does pro work (mainly art and music photography), what I see there is more versatile than what I'm familiar with from Canon.



The Sony's are superb,,, that said, one of my buddies is a retired professional photographer who worked for a major Canadian fashion magazine. Now that he's retired, he shoots everything with a compact Olympus pocket camera, then spends endless hours or days processing images in Photoshop.


----------



## btbyrd (Feb 12, 2022)

Mirrorless cameras are great.


----------



## Bobby2shots (Feb 12, 2022)

rstcso said:


> I too own Nikon's D750, bought at my local camera shop on release date, and the D500. I loved shooting portraiture, architectural, and just walking around taking candid shots of people and places. Most of my gear hasn't been used the past few years, and I've been seriously thinking about selling, but the prices are so depressed, it's, well... depressing. The most I've done in the past few months with the gear was cycle the batteries so they didn't die before their time.
> 
> As I get older and nearing retirement, I've been trying to figure out what I wanted to do with my life. All week I've been planning a road trip, leaving in a few hours, to a large, Mom-and-Pop kayak shop to look at fishing kayaks. Having grown up fishing, but not having done so for over 20 years, this seems like a fun way to close my circle of life, getting much-needed exercise in the process.
> 
> This thread has got me thinking about getting out and doing some shooting instead of selling. Maybe all I really need to do to keep busy and active is go upstairs and pull out my camera gear.


 
You've got some great gear there, so don't even entertain the idea of selling. Your D750's F-mount lenses are also a bonus when you need a little extra reach/length, and mount them on your D500. It's hard (and expensive) to switch once you've commited to a specific lens platform. Based on your stated style of shooting, I doubt that viewfinder blackout would be anything more than a potential once-in-a-while annoyance. (sports, birds-in-flight,video,etc)

Have you got a really good tripod and ballhead? Strobe? Reflectors?. Those can open a lot of doors in your shooting.


----------



## Matus (Feb 12, 2022)

Aa someone who used to shoot 4x5” and Rolleiflex and Mamiya 6x6, I find this outburst about slow discontinuation of SLR gear amusing. The amount of SLR gear on the secondary market is basically endless and stuff will be easy to find for many years to come. Mirrorless was already pretty good back when I bought OMD-EM5-II. And the progress did not stop back there. I think it is not half as bad as we sometimes make ourselves to believe.


----------



## madmotts (Feb 12, 2022)

It sucks having all this gear that’s kind of worthless after spending thousands and years with it. I get that. 

I bit the bullet and got a Nikon z6 and pretty happy w it. There’s something about the instant on of my d600/700 that I miss. For family and convenience the z 40mm f2 is a sweet almost compact package. Have the z 35&50 1.8s and like them but they ain’t 1.4s. I tried some old glass on the z adapter and while it had a cool almost filter effect, the edges were too soft compared to the new z lenses.

Something very intriguing but ridiculously expensive is the Fuji GFX. Something about the quality of image of medium format.

I should find a low shutter count d700. I really loved that camera. Probably less than the price of well used Fujiyama. Need to get that photo bug going.


----------



## Cliffkol (Feb 12, 2022)

tcmx3 said:


> dunno man Leica seems to do ok with mirrorless. so does Sony.
> 
> also lol at that image 7 dudes but only 1 haircut


Gay Parade?


----------



## btbyrd (Feb 12, 2022)

I want a Sony A7 IV real bad. Like "sell my most expensive knives" bad. 

Tiny APS-C bodies designed for portability might be toylike with small sensors and tiny batteries. But there's nothing toylike about the current round of full frame offerings, especially the flagships. I'd take them over a DSLR any day. What's not to like? What are the advantages of mirrors?


----------



## Greasylake (Feb 12, 2022)

Cliffkol said:


> Gay Parade?


Older meme of badly undercover feds


----------



## Cliffkol (Feb 12, 2022)

btbyrd said:


> I want a Sony A7 IV real bad. Like "sell my most expensive knives" bad.
> 
> Tiny APS-C bodies designed for portability might be toylike with small sensors and tiny batteries. But there's nothing toylike about the current round of full frame offerings, especially the flagships. I'd take them over a DSLR any day. What's not to like? What are the advantages of mirrors?


This is the same kind of transition as we had going from film to digital. Once canon and Nikon get mirrorless figured out (autofocus, time delays, lens size, etc) the non-mirrorless days are doomed and over. IMO, they are both taking their time in order to wrap up their digital inventories and production lines.


----------



## WPerry (Feb 12, 2022)

Funny enough, I got rid of my venerable Canon 5D and bought a Sony A7 because I wanted to shoot on vintage/manual glass. F****ing fantastic move for me - mirrorless lends itself to the task so, so much better than (d)SLRs.


----------



## Luftmensch (Feb 12, 2022)

Bobby2shots said:


> I find shutter blackout issues really depend on what type of shooter you are. If you're shooting video, or fast action sports,,, shooting birds-in-flight,,,even fashion shoots, then yeah, it can be a major issue. Not so much if you're doing portraits or landscape photography.



Yeah! There has never been a better time to be a photographer. There is so much choice at so many price points... brand new and used!

You're right. Black out is no problem for the sort of photography I do. I was just trying to illustrate how mirrorless can offer new experiences. On that... I had a chance to try a Sony A9... it was a bizarre experience. It was actually difficult to verify a photo had been taken _because_ there was no blackout or mechanical slap. I am sure you would get used to it quickly... but from a haptics perspective - I actually thought it was a minor step backwards!





Bobby2shots said:


> Personally, if I was starting over from scratch and had to make that mirrorless/DSLR choice, I'd probably go mirrorless,,,. My main concerns there are mostly about rapid obsolesence in the mirrorless world; there's always a newer/faster sensor/processor available, and your "current" model is no longer in vogue. That may be OK for a money-making pro, or someone with deeeeep pockets, but as a casual hobbyist, my arms are getting short these days.



I am not really Leica's target market. In the past I can see how their mechanical cameras could be subjectively worth the asking price. They were little engineering marvels - like fine mechanical watches... these days... I am not so sure. Yes; the M-models have a 'complex' rangefinder mechanism... but the digital oriented models are just good ergonomics and build quality in a premium design. To your point... the digital bodies are more subject to the churn of ever improving technology. I know... You don't have to play that race... but once you are in that churn... It is hard to convince yourself that you are satisfied. 

Whereas an old mechanical body could last decades and be repaired (a dying art)... I am not so sure the same applies to digital bodies. People generally arent motivated enough to follow through with repair - and I suspect no major manufacturer will both repairing current models in even 10 years??

I'd have to be _a lot_ wealthier to even consider these camera bodies. 

I feel manual prime lenses are a different proposition. They have a close to indefinite working life. Current designs are not going to be limited by technology for decades... and lets face it... they are better than my needs . Again; I am not the target market... but the value proposition they offer is closer to a price point I am willing to consider as rational


----------



## Luftmensch (Feb 12, 2022)

WPerry said:


> Funny enough, I got rid of my venerable Canon 5D and bought a Sony A7 because I wanted to shoot on vintage/manual glass. F****ing fantastic move for me - mirrorless lends itself to the task so, so much better than (d)SLRs.



The first interchangeable lens camera I purchased was a Sony alpha for that exact reason. There was some old manual glass rattling around the family cupboards that I wanted to play with.

Manual lenses are not suited to all kinds of photography... but if you can use them, focusing through live view is trivial. I found the process of trading off shutter, ISO and aperture quite fun! A lot more engrossing than just clicking the shutter. The uncertain outcome of manual focussing is also a little bit addictive. The disappointment of the occasional out-of-focus shots adds to the joy experience when you nail a difficult shot!

Lots of fun!


[Edit: manual lenses are NOT suited to all kinds of photography... sorry! Forgot the *not*]


----------



## WPerry (Feb 12, 2022)

Luftmensch said:


> The first interchangeable lens camera I purchased was a Sony alpha for that exact reason. There was some old manual glass rattling around the family cupboards that I wanted to play with.
> 
> Manual lenses are suited to all kinds of photography... but if you can use them, focusing through live view is trivial. I found the process of trading off shutter, ISO and aperture quite fun! A lot more engrossing than just clicking the shutter. The uncertain outcome of manual focussing is also a little bit addictive. The disappointment of the occasional out-of-focus shots adds to the joy experience when you nail a difficult shot!
> 
> Lots of fun!



For me, it was that I found myself drawn to a certain rendering when looking looking at photos online. When I started digging further, I found that the majority of the photos that I'd liked were shot with Zeiss lenses. I picked up a C/Y Distagon 2.8/28 and an adapter for my 5D and that sent me tumbling down the rabbit hole.


----------



## Bobby2shots (Feb 13, 2022)

WPerry said:


> For me, it was that I found myself drawn to a certain rendering when looking looking at photos online. When I started digging further, I found that the majority of the photos that I'd liked were shot with Zeiss lenses. I picked up a C/Y Distagon 2.8/28 and an adapter for my 5D and that sent me tumbling down the rabbit hole.



I'm a big fan of the Zeiss lenses. I've toyed with getting a Milvus series macro lens, but the price appears to have shot up quite a bit over the last few years.
re "rendering", whenever I see that word, my mind immediately shifts to the Nikkor 200mm f4 macro lens,,,, I'd kill to find a new one, but that is unlikely to happen.


----------



## Justinv (Feb 13, 2022)

You like the battery life and weight of SLR. Neither have anything to do with image quality. SLRs are massively heavy and obsolete. Its easy to carry extra batteries. Its hard to carry heavy cameras. My limit has been about 2lbs for my camera kit. Mirrorless gets me there. Even when I carried nikon film cameras ages ago I used bodies under 1lb and light wide angle lenses.


----------



## rstcso (Feb 13, 2022)

Bobby2shots said:


> Have you got a really good tripod and ballhead? Strobe? Reflectors?. Those can open a lot of doors in your shooting.


My bigger tripod is a Gitzo with a BH-55 ball head and I have a more portable rig that's just a step down. As for strobes, I've had well over a dozen with just about every size and shape of reflectors, egg crates, etc. I've sold/gave away all the strobes and kept four Phottix Mitros+ and a couple Nikon speedlights, which are not as powerful as the strobes, but take up a lot less space and get the job done, you just have to be a little more creative. I've kept a few handheld reflectors, but sold/gave away all the big ones requiring C-stands for one-man operation. I had a half dozen or so C-stands along with a couple of nice rolling stands.

I have Nikon's holy trinity, fisheye, 105mm micro, an older Nikon shift lens for architectural, TC-14E III teleconverter, and more. I had the 200-500 f5.6, but never really used it. The 70-200mm f2.8 and teleconverter on the D500 was more than enough, faster and lighter.

For a while, I flew drones, getting my Part 107 certification. Not doing it for a living, I couldn't justify buying anything beyond a Mavic 2 Pro and let my Part 107 expire.

Lack of gear is not the problem. I lost the passion I had for shooting. I still check B&H's daily deals every morning (except Saturday).

P.S. I didn't buy a fishing kayak yesterday, but know which one, should I decide to do so. Unfortunately, the escalation of costs for petroleum products (the boat hulls use a _lot_ of plastic), shipping, etc are impacting their business (like most others). The owner was informed this past week one boat in stock for $2,199 will be going up $600 on the next shipment.


----------



## Bobby2shots (Feb 13, 2022)

rstcso said:


> My bigger tripod is a Gitzo with a BH-55 ball head and I have a more portable rig that's just a step down. As for strobes, I've had well over a dozen with just about every size and shape of reflectors, egg crates, etc. I've sold/gave away all the strobes and kept four Phottix Mitros+ and a couple Nikon speedlights, which are not as powerful as the strobes, but take up a lot less space and get the job done, you just have to be a little more creative. I've kept a few handheld reflectors, but sold/gave away all the big ones requiring C-stands for one-man operation. I had a half dozen or so C-stands along with a couple of nice rolling stands.
> 
> I have Nikon's holy trinity, fisheye, 105mm micro, an older Nikon shift lens for architectural, TC-14E III teleconverter, and more. I had the 200-500 f5.6, but never really used it. The 70-200mm f2.8 and teleconverter on the D500 was more than enough, faster and lighter.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your post rstcso. I see so many parallels between your situation/experience and mine. I'm trying to figure out how I came to the point of dropping out, or,,, losing interest. The answers are, as it turns out,,, quite complex and multi-faceted. 

I too am retired, and at age 73, I'm now contending with physical limitations that will only increase over the long term. Cost is another factor, and it seems the more gear I acquire, the more I need, and it's seemingly been a never-ending cycle/evolution. I think the bottom-line there is, I probably lack focus/direction because I haven't yet found my "niche".

Decades ago, I used to love doing night-scapes/street photography/candid "people" shots, outdoor concerts, etc,,, but nowadays there seems to be so many social barriers; for example, if you're photographing a crowded bar/terrace, somebody's almost inevitably going to start yelling at you, wondering why your taking "his" picture when he's just part of a crowd,,, or, you're photographing a building and a security gaurd wants to know "why" you're photographing THAT building, as if you're a possible "terrorist". At one point, I thought about taking sports photos at the local high-school where I worked,,, and even then it required several levels of permission from the organizers and parents. Simply too many frustrations getting in the way. My spouse and I also wanted to buy a new SUV and visit some Provincial Parks for landscape and wild-life photograhy, but thanks to Covid, my spouse is now busy taking care of her 95 year-old mother, so that's out. I'm now thinking about joining a local photo-club (if I can find one) just so I can be around other like-minded people who are also interested in photography. 

Good luck with the Kayak project, and don't forget to buy a water-proof case for your camera.


----------



## rstcso (Feb 14, 2022)

Bobby2shots said:


> My spouse and I also wanted to buy a new SUV and visit some Provincial Parks for landscape and wild-life photograhy, but thanks to Covid, my spouse is now busy taking care of her 95 year-old mother, so that's out. I'm now thinking about joining a local photo-club (if I can find one) just so I can be around other like-minded people who are also interested in photography.


I wish you and your wife the best. My father-in-law lived with us for a few years. He had Alzheimer's which progressed to the point we finally had to put him in a facility. Fortunately, he was a veteran of the Korean war and Texas has several Veteran's Homes, including one about 45 minutes from our home with a memory care unit. Their only requirement is they get whatever money they were getting, e.g. retirement, Social Security, etc., except for $150/mo spending money. For this, everything is paid for 100%. They provide transportation for any doctor's appointments, group shopping trips, and being around other's that are respectful and love their country.

I tried the camera club thing, but wasn't impressed.



Bobby2shots said:


> The answers are, as it turns out,,, quite complex and multi-faceted.


Yes, they are. I've reached the point where I'm happy being "stuck" at home due to Covid. I'm still employed, for which I'm grateful. In today's world, I don't even want to make eye contact with other drivers, just in case they think I'll looking at them wrong. Going on twenty years ago, I was a deputy sheriff in the county which includes Austin. You couldn't be more correct about going for a walk-about now, taking pictures of who and what you see. Although 100% legal, this crazy new society in which we live can easily turn on you.



Bobby2shots said:


> Good luck with the Kayak project, and don't forget to buy a water-proof case for your camera.


Which brings me to "the Kayak project" (I like that name). After much discussion, my wife and I decided this is something we wanted to do together. Due to their plastic construction (petroleum product) and the cost of shipping, prices are skyrocketing, so yesterday afternoon, I drove back to the mom-and-pop shop and bought _two _fishing kayaks.

My expectations of prices going up were confirmed _after _paying for them. When I visited Saturday morning, we'd discussed the rising costs, but the owner didn't mention the prices for these boats were going up hundreds of dollars each on the next shipment. He explained he didn't say anything because he didn't want me to feel pressured into buying something I wasn't sure I wanted, just to beat the price increases.

We don't have room in the garage for them and I don't want to store them outside until building proper storage racks and cover, so they're currently on our living room floor. Hopefully, we can use this time training our two dogs how to sit in the back. We'll have to get dog flotation devices, then use our pool to do some "on-the-water" training before taking them out into "the real world".


----------



## Bolek (Feb 14, 2022)

It is great time for photography : you can get for cheap old equipment or for big money new ones.

My old stuff is not stop working because it is old fashion one. Some old lens are not worth to be put on a 35+Mpixcel camera but I do not have any.

Up to now I am limited to 24Mp.

I have a heavy set : Nikon D3X Nikon D3s with some good lenses.

The light one : Sony A6000 (bought last summer on sale) with F1.8/55 Zeiss (75mm equivalent) and a Nikon Coolpix A (28mm equivalent).


----------



## gaijin (Feb 14, 2022)

Bolek said:


> The light one : Sony A6000 (bought last summer on sale) with F1.8/55 Zeiss (75mm equivalent) and a Nikon Coolpix A (28mm equivalent).



For a while I had a small Sony system and recently sold most of it - somehow I failed to sell my 24mm 1.8 lens but it is so good that I might pick up another camera body just to use it.

Full name is short and sweet: "Sony Sonnar T* E 24mm f/1.8 ZA".


----------



## Bobby2shots (Feb 14, 2022)

Bolek said:


> It is great time for photography : you can get for cheap old equipment or for big money new ones.
> 
> My old stuff is not stop working because it is old fashion one. Some old lens are not worth to be put on a 35+Mpixcel camera but I do not have any.
> 
> ...



Nothing wrong with 24 Mp. Heck, my oldest digital camera, a 7 Mp Canon A620 that I bought 17 years ago, is still capable of taking superb images. I think the image processor has more of an impact on image quality than sensor resolution.


----------



## Luftmensch (Feb 14, 2022)

Bobby2shots said:


> Cost is another factor, and it seems the more gear I acquire, the more I need, and it's seemingly been a never-ending cycle/evolution.



That can be a difficult cake to stay away from! 

When I first started photography I was definitely guilty of that. That was probably 10 years ago. My interest has waxed and waned in that decade. My desired are pretty stable... Sure; I'd like some new lenses and a new body... but I dont _need_ them.

Most most hobbyists, particularly those who do static or relaxed photography (not sports, etc), sensor quality has been more than we need for quite some time. 'More' is always better.... but that generally has not been the limitation!



Bolek said:


> Up to now I am limited to 24Mp.





Bobby2shots said:


> Nothing wrong with 24 Mp. Heck, my oldest digital camera, a 7 Mp Canon A620 that I bought 17 years ago, is still capable of taking superb images.



I agree with @Bobby2shots! 

I might even go so far as to say more than 24MP is actually a waste for many people. Those files will be slower to process and require more storage. If you are honest about your intentions, mid resolution files might be sufficient. A 4K screen is only 8MP. A mobile phone screen might be 4MP.... You dont need mega resolution unless you want to do very large prints, super high-resolution prints or endlessly zoom on your computer. 

I still use a 12MP camera. When I want more resolution (mostly for landscapes) I make panoramas. I can generate gigapixel images doing this.... Dont know why I enjoy doing all that processing... but I do!


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 14, 2022)

dunno with 24mp you can downsize easily.

these days a bog standard macbook pro, which is the standard issue for folks in my line of work, can easily churn through those files.

rendering is everything these days anyway because resolutions are so high. you will get more sharpness out of proper focus than a better sensor or lens. the fact that so many people are satisfied with zooms, autofocus, hand-held shooting, lenses from companies where 70% of them have noticeable deficiencies in how parallel to the sensor the lenses are, etc. gives much evidence of this to me.


----------



## Luftmensch (Feb 15, 2022)

True... and extra resolution means you can crop... although... arguably that means you framed the photo poorly 

Yeah... editing photos isnt so bad these days. Panoramas do become slow to compile at higher resolutions. Storage is the big one. I shoot raw so that I can edit my favourite photos. Over a decade that has added up to a few TB.... If I am honest, I dont look at the majority of them... or even print them.... so I am not so sure I need more ones and zeros I dont look at .

I purchased the original A7s for its sensitivity. Shooting that in manual mode is fun. I let auto ISO compensate for my aperture and shutter choices. This is really useful in low light. The 12MP resolution hasnt really held me back - though I realise everybody has their preference! The sensitivity of modern 24MP cameras has caught up... so I have a slight urge to upgrade. Lots of other features have been added to the Sony wheelhouse since then (IBIS, lossless compression)... but I dont really _need_ to upgrade... I just _want_ to....


----------



## Bobby2shots (Feb 15, 2022)

To my mind, the key element in producing images that stand out is, having a "vision",,,,,, looking at a scene's elements, and using those elements as tools to transform that scene with creative imagination,,, It's the difference between producing a "picture",,,, and an inspired work of art.. You can uses your shutter to capture time,,,, use filters to tame light and "mood".

Take a look at what Atilio Ruffo does with long-exposure landscape photography. This guy is a true artist and visionary.


----------



## MarcelNL (Feb 15, 2022)

has the noise issue been dealt with in more recent sensors? When I looked at the topic trying to pick a decent DSLR some 10 years ago I discussed the topic extensively with my neighbor (who was a professional photographer). He made me aware of the fact that the megapixel craze has little meaning for most users as the more dots a sensor has the more noise they create.
Sure a full frame camera has loads of advantages versus APS-C, and will have a larger sensor with more pixels.
With the Canon 1000D I picked at the time I can take photo's at night, bit the problem is my night vision is nowhere near good enough to frame a picture.


----------



## Luftmensch (Feb 15, 2022)

MarcelNL said:


> has the noise issue been dealt with in more recent sensors?



Compare sensors across a technology generation and you can make the general statement that bigger pixels are less noisy. It stands to reason... they can integrate more photons. The relationship has become a little more complex. Modern sensors can bin groups of pixels together. I believe it is done in a part of the analogue-to-digital pipeline where there are benefits over digitally downsampling the natively sized file. I believe with these sorts of tricks, the advantage of bigger pixels is not as pronounced as it used to be.

If you compare sensors across different technology generations, the "bigger is more sensitive" relationship breaks down. The trajectory of sensor design has included incremental improvements to signal-to-noise ratios. For example, my low resolution 12MP camera had really good sensitivity at the time. Better than its 24MP siblings. It held its own for a few years. But that was seven years ago! They have improved circuitry such that modern 24MP cameras are as good or better.

The answer to your question?? The answer is pretty close to yes.... Of course, more is always better! Because resolution and sensitivity must be balanced against each other, the industry flip-flopped between marketing one or the other as the 'best'. Now we get a pretty good balance. I would say we reached a point of technology maturity several years ago. The resolution and sensitivity of prosumer cameras is no longer limiting in common scenarios. As long as you don't have specialist requirements, modern cameras produce pretty clean files.


----------



## gaijin (Feb 15, 2022)

MarcelNL said:


> With the Canon 1000D I picked at the time I can take photo's at night, bit the problem is my night vision is nowhere near good enough to frame a picture.



First, I do think there are improvments in low light quality even with higher pixel count cameras. Technology evolves. But if you compare "the same" camera when it's available with both many and even more pixels, the lower pixel count camera usually comes out slightly better. E.g. check this comparison of Nikon Z6 and Z7. I've seem similar for Leica SL2 vs SL2-S. But then there is post processing. If the stuff built in by Adobe or whatever you're using is not enough, there are separate denoising addons or standalone software products that sometimes can do better work with more pixels (if I understand right).

As for the night time pictures, this is where mirrorless (or live-view on a DSLR) really shines - you watch an enhanced picture on a screen instead of watching the dead of the night through optical means.

And if you wanna go all in for low light, check out the Leica Q2 Monochrom: 
 
(15 minutes into this video).

OK, Leica means "I cannot afford" and "Monochrom" means "I want more colors"... but low light, low noise.


----------



## MarcelNL (Feb 15, 2022)

thanks for that update!
I just took out the camera, it has been a while...and see chose the 550D and not the 1000 as I recalled  , now recall preferring the AF system over the other budget models. It's 18Mp should be plenty, but one drawback I now also recall is that the kit lenshowever being very decent suffered from glare etc in direct sunlight (plastic fantastic lens material)

Think I need to get some decent glass and start using it again


----------



## gaijin (Feb 15, 2022)

MarcelNL said:


> thanks for that update!
> I just took out the camera, it has been a while...and see chose the 550D and not the 1000 as I recalled  , now recall preferring the AF system over the other budget models. It's 18Mp should be plenty, but one drawback I now also recall is that the kit lenshowever being very decent suffered from glare etc in direct sunlight (plastic fantastic lens material)
> 
> Think I need to get some decent glass and start using it again



The biggest print I've made in recent years is a 35x50 cm print (approx 14x20 inches) and looks STUNNING even though it was taken with my old 12 megapixel Nikon D90. For normal household use, everything over 10 megapixels or so is enough. The rest is just room for cropping or other postprocessing.


----------



## MarcelNL (Feb 15, 2022)

yeah sure, I have taken some great pictures, especially after some mild processing in lightroom.
It all comes back, I was underwhelmed by that 50mm lens getting hazy in direct sunlight...and took less and less photo's, so I need a nice L lens and get going again. The good thing is, I have no direct need for the latest and fastest L lenses and there are plenty to be had for decent money. Now see what you guys did...

Probably disappointed by that lens due to having used Nikkor lenses for most of my analog life.


----------



## icanhaschzbrgr (Feb 15, 2022)

I switched from point'n'shoot camera to nikon d200. Then to full frame viewfinder film camera. Then to m43 Olympus. And haven't looked back. Modern m43 lenses are stellar imo. I don't know other systems that can offer anything comparable in size/performance to my Olympus 40-150 f2.8. Pair with nice and cheap Panasonic pencake lenses and you are set for everything. I've been using m43 system for past 7-8 years now and never felt limited by small sensor noise or resolution. Or depth of field. 

The biggest print I made is 2 meters wide — a mountains panorama shot stitched from multiple vertical shots — it offers way more details than a printing machine was able to resolve. I'm pretty sure I could make similar shot with any canon/sony/nikon/whatever dslr or ff mirrorless, but m43 allowed me to carry less. Which is important in mountains.


----------



## Bobby2shots (Feb 15, 2022)

MarcelNL said:


> yeah sure, I have taken some great pictures, especially after some mild processing in lightroom.
> It all comes back, I was underwhelmed by that 50mm lens getting hazy in direct sunlight...and took less and less photo's, so I need a nice L lens and get going again. The good thing is, I have no direct need for the latest and fastest L lenses and there are plenty to be had for decent money. Now see what you guys did...
> 
> Probably disappointed by that lens due to having used Nikkor lenses for most of my analog life.



Try shading the front element of the lens, either with a lens hood, or your hand, or standing in a shaded spot. (when possible)


----------



## MarcelNL (Feb 15, 2022)

Bobby2shots said:


> Try shading the front element of the lens, either with a lens hood, or your hand, or standing in a shaded spot. (when possible)


so true, and I do where I can but the problem is...that gets old real fast and it limits camera position a great deal...

I've got my eye on a 24-105 L F4, I have used that lens and some other L lenses (loaned them from the VAST glass collection my neighbor had) and loved it...but made the mistake not buying one ($$$) because I thought I first needed to get more accustomed to the camera in a sort of chicken or the egg decision. Standing advice I got was 'buy the best glass you can afford and the cheapest body you can get away with' and in retrospect that was solid advice.


----------



## Bobby2shots (Feb 15, 2022)

icanhaschzbrgr said:


> I switched from point'n'shoot camera to nikon d200. Then to full frame viewfinder film camera. Then to m43 Olympus. And haven't looked back. Modern m43 lenses are stellar imo. I don't know other systems that can offer anything comparable in size/performance to my Olympus 40-150 f2.8. Pair with nice and cheap Panasonic pencake lenses and you are set for everything. I've been using m43 system for past 7-8 years now and never felt limited by small sensor noise or resolution. Or depth of field.
> 
> The biggest print I made is 2 meters wide — a mountains panorama shot stitched from multiple vertical shots — it offers way more details than a printing machine was able to resolve. I'm pretty sure I could make similar shot with any canon/sony/nikon/whatever dslr or ff mirrorless, but m43 allowed me to carry less. Which is important in mountains.



The most "fun" I've had with a camera, was a brief session with the now-discontinued Olympus Stylus 1. What a little gem. It was styled much like the bigger SLR's, yet could easily fit in a jacket pocket. Unfortunately, this was a small-sensor "compact class camera". Too bad that the modern BS! sensors weren't available back then. The built-in lens was an F; 2.8 28-300mm that folded to pancake size. I'd buy one in a second if they replaced the sensor with something like Sony's 1" BSI sensor. I have a Sony RX-100 Mk.III, but I'm not crazy about the handling, and the lens lacks reach for a travel cam. Great image quality though, with a Zeiss 24-70mm (equiv) F 1.8- 2.8 zoom.


----------



## Bobby2shots (Feb 15, 2022)

MarcelNL said:


> so true, and I do where I can but the problem is...that gets old real fast and it limits camera position a great deal...
> 
> I've got my eye on a 24-105 L F4, I have used that lens and some other L lenses (loaned them from the VAST glass collection my neighbor had) and loved it...but made the mistake not buying one ($$$) because I thought I first needed to get more accustomed to the camera in a sort of chicken or the egg decision. Standing advice I got was 'buy the best glass you can afford and the cheapest body you can get away with' and in retrospect that was solid advice.



Yeah, that's a tough call. You have to really do your research before committing to a specific glass platform. In 2016, when I bought most of my current cameras, the Nikkor lenses were a relatively "safe" bet for me, especially since the D500 was so desireable at that time, as well as the D810. I actually bought the Nikkor 200-500mm F:5.6 and the Nikkor Holy Trinity before buying the camera bodies. I'm sure they'll be around for a longgggg time yet.


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 15, 2022)

Bobby2shots said:


> Yeah, that's a tough call. You have to really do your research before committing to a specific glass platform. In 2016, when I bought most of my current cameras, the Nikkor lenses were a relatively "safe" bet for me, especially since the D500 was so desireable at that time, as well as the D810. I actually bought the Nikkor 200-500mm F:5.6 and the Nikkor Holy Trinity before buying the camera bodies. I'm sure they'll be around for a longgggg time yet.



F Mount Zeiss lenses are almost always a safe choice. bomb proof and most without electronic apertures.

all of the Zeiss stuff I use on my Canon are F mount fwiw.

@MarcelNL is there anyway I can talk you out of the 24-105? IMO that lens is a false economy. it's too wide a range and too slow IMO. prices are OK but I really feel like you can do better.

to me these lenses evoke the same feelings as when people insist to me how much they "need" an SUV. I have gotten along fine with my 2-door for years and the number of times I've needed a different vehicle are so low that I was simply able to rent something when I needed it. I feel the same way about these wide range, small aperture zooms. 24mm is rarely useful. 105mm more so I will admit but then the minimum focus distance is terrible and even the II isnt very good up close.

it's ok if you're budget limited or you REALLY hate changing lenses but I would rather just cart around 3 separate lenses and get the Distagon/Makro-Planar lenses. MFD and rendering are more useful IMO/IME. but then I also have in my life lugged around Pentax 67s so  . Guess I just place a very low value on "convenience" when trying to take photos since phone cameras are so decent now and far more convenient still.


----------



## MarcelNL (Feb 15, 2022)

I'm not hinged on any brand lens, just that the Canon L series are pretty good and this range seems adequate for a walkaround lens. Macro requires separate lensen for sure.

I'll have a look at Zeiss, as I what I've seen from them I love the glass... I don;t need electronic aperture anyway as that is what I always adjust manually


----------



## Borealhiker (Feb 15, 2022)

It’s a wonderful time for photographers right now! We have so many choices! Really great choices. And nothing sucks. Different manufacturer’s may have an edge in one area… auto focus, low light etc…but they are all such good quality. DSLR’s may be less of a focus now just like film to digital….but lol you can get what you want easily….you can still easily get great film set ups. I moved from my D500 to the Z6ll and could not be happier. Still love my 500 and it’s awesome using both. And then there are the phones! Great time to be into photography.


----------



## Borealhiker (Feb 15, 2022)

Also while this is reminiscent of film to digital….for some reason OP’s angst? reminded me of Y2K for those of you who were thereThe sky is falling! Sorry couldn’t help it.


----------



## wombat (Feb 15, 2022)

tcmx3 said:


> @MarcelNL[/USER] is there anyway I can talk you out of the 24-105? IMO that lens is a false economy. it's too wide a range and too slow IMO. prices are OK but I really feel like you can do better.


As a former owner of the 24-105, I agree. It looks like good value next to the 24-70 f/2.8, but it's too slow. I sold mine and replaced it with a fast prime.


----------



## MarcelNL (Feb 16, 2022)

OK back to the drawing table...so now I know what NOT to buy...I want something around 50mm perhaps the 24-70 and something larger like 80mm oooh shoot...think I need to have a chat with my photographer friend


----------



## wombat (Feb 16, 2022)

You could get a 50mm f/1.8 (or even f/1.4) plus an 85mm f/1.8 for much less than the cost of the 24-105. 

I'm using a 50mm prime at the moment. If I wanted a zoom, I'd probably try to find a way to stretch to the 24-70.


----------



## MarcelNL (Feb 16, 2022)

makes sense, I was teetering on the brink of the abyss thinking one size fits all solutions work...should know better ;-)
think I want a 24mm , a 50-ish, and something 80-ish and keep the 55-250 for snapshots far away...not as if I'll be doing wildlife shots far away anytime soon, that requires much more patience than I can manage.


----------



## icanhaschzbrgr (Feb 16, 2022)

There's no right or wrong choice. 24-105 renders pretty pleasing images if you have enough light. And it's much more versatile then a bunch of primes.

It all depends on what and how you are going to shoot. For example I'd pick 24-105 over any set of primes if I were to shoot knives  Paired with tripod it will give me everything I need. Won't be an ideal choice due to focusing distance, but good enough. 
I'd also pick zoom if I'm to shoot children, cause running back and forth with prime lens isn't my preferred way of shooting.

But if you want bokeh, sure 24-105 has nothing interesting to offer compared to primes


----------



## MarcelNL (Feb 16, 2022)

problem is, I want all of that...;-)

Yet I'm getting closer, I simply need to drop that kit lens, add a prime wide angle, a prime 50 mm and a prime 80ish of good enough lens quality as that is where the kit lens drops the ball. Decent lenses with sufficient low aperture will provide that bokeh.


----------



## MarcelNL (Feb 16, 2022)

so first 'kill', a Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART, first impression, WOW!


----------



## WiriWiri (Feb 16, 2022)

Borealhiker said:


> It’s a wonderful time for photographers right now! We have so many choices! Really great choices. And nothing sucks. Different manufacturer’s may have an edge in one area… auto focus, low light etc…but they are all such good quality. DSLR’s may be less of a focus now just like film to digital….but lol you can get what you want easily….you can still easily get great film set ups. I moved from my D500 to the Z6ll and could not be happier. Still love my 500 and it’s awesome using both. And then there are the phones! Great time to be into photography.



Agree with this. The DSLR had a good innings, but things just move on so much faster now.

It reminds me of the time I was working for one of the world’s biggest photo libraries in the pre-digital photography era. Creatives, agencies and photographers were almost united back then that digital would not be a factor for many years - the quality wasn’t there, file sizes too huge, film was king, batteries too small etc etc - we still employed legions of picture researchers, hundreds of couriers ferrying transparencies across London and beyond

Within 2 years that model was almost dead, our company the biggest asset in Getty Images’ arsenal of brands, nearly all self serve and digitally downloaded, a massive transformation of the industry. This is just more of the same, albeit the DSLR era will be less mourned


----------



## Bobby2shots (Feb 16, 2022)

MarcelNL said:


> so first 'kill', a Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART, first impression, WOW!



Marcel, I just want to clear up which camera body you have;,,,, is it the 1000D or the 550D?

The Sigma ART-series lenses are great,,,, downside is, they're quite large and bulky,,, and as I recall, not weatherproof. Tamron has also been competing strongly in that price/performance category.

Regarding "bokeh" (the quality of background blur), this is where the old Canon primes drop the ball with their 7-blade diaphragms. A 9-blade diaphragm will deliver a more pleasing result.

Another point; if you put a FF (full-frame) lens on your APS-C body, the focal length will appear 1.6 times stronger,,, in other words, a 50MM FF lens will look like an 80mm lens, etc.


----------



## MarcelNL (Feb 16, 2022)

mine is the 550D, so the 1.6 factor does apply (and is much welcome), I'm test flying the lens and LOVE it, THIS was exactly what was missing and what made me stop using the damn thing...


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 16, 2022)

Bobby2shots said:


> Marcel, I just want to clear up which camera body you have;,,,, is it the 1000D or the 550D?
> 
> The Sigma ART-series lenses are great,,,, downside is, they're quite large and bulky,,, and as I recall, not weatherproof. Tamron has also been competing strongly in that price/performance category.
> 
> ...



diaphragm shape is more relevant to the shape of specular highlights and is kind of a minor piece of bokeh compared to the lens elements themselves.

I agree that all else equal more blades tends to head towards more pleasing but some of the lenses that have ever been made wrt to their out of focus rendering have fewer aperture blades, usually straighter and less even, than the lenses made today. the old OM system 50mm f2.0 macro for example has immediately identifiable hexagonal specular highlights but is also famous for its rendering and transition to out of focus. similarly, the lens that usually gets brought up for 35mm as having the best bokeh of all time is the Rokkor 58mm f1.2 and that's 8. even in the Canon world, their king the 200/1.8 is only 8. 

so basically, I would look at images and see if you like the rendering rather than checking the box. some incredible lenses have dog bokeh (Zeiss Otus 55 chief amongst them, unfortunately).


----------



## icanhaschzbrgr (Feb 16, 2022)

Well since some photo gear gurus have been spotted here, I'd like to ask a question on lens sizes.

When I switched from Nikon to Voigtländer (that's Nikon F to Leica M mount), I loved the size of lenses. I mean I switched from cropped sensor to full frame yet prime lenses were almost twice smaller. Sure that was partly due to the lack of autofocus, but mainly due to shorter flange distance. Newer mirrorless Nikons has an even shorter flange distance. Yet I don't see lenses as compact as Leica M mount offers. 

I mean I can understand that you can't make a super fast lens small. All those f1/2, f0.95 lenses has a lot of glass in there. But what about f1.4? All fast lenses I've seen for newer mirrorless cameras were bigger than good old Leica M lenses. 

I guess I'm missing something trivial here


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 16, 2022)

icanhaschzbrgr said:


> Well since some photo gear gurus have been spotted here, I'd like to ask a question on lens sizes.
> 
> When I switched from Nikon to Voigtländer (that's Nikon F to Leica M mount), I loved the size of lenses. I mean I switched from cropped sensor to full frame yet prime lenses were almost twice smaller. Sure that was partly due to the lack of autofocus, but mainly due to shorter flange distance. Newer mirrorless Nikons has an even shorter flange distance. Yet I don't see lenses as compact as Leica M mount offers.
> 
> ...



probably the number of lens elements.

I cant speak to Voigtlander specifically but a lot of what Leica does involves tricks to squeeze every drop of performance out of fewer/thinner elements and when I look at the Nikon 50/1.8 Z diagram this is a lot of elements







compare to the 50 Lux ASPH which has fewer elements


----------



## icanhaschzbrgr (Feb 16, 2022)

This is a 50mm Zeiss sonnar f/1.5. Small lens with a nice rendering. I haven't checked it's resolution, so maybe it can't take advantage of the modern sensors, so lens designers had to put 3-x times more glass in a more modern lens designs. Just like the behemoth below: 






25mm f/1.2 lens from Olympus. It's few times larger even though it does pretty much the same thing as sonnar. Except for autofocus and weather sealing.


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 16, 2022)

icanhaschzbrgr said:


> This is a 50mm Zeiss sonnar f/1.5. Small lens with a nice rendering. I haven't checked it's resolution, so maybe it can't take advantage of the modern sensors, so lens designers had to put 3-x times more glass in a more modern lens designs. Just like the behemoth below:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



that Sonnar design is ancient. like 100 years old ancient.

again lens sharpness is pretty secondary most applications; good focus on a rangefinder is a challenge and most people were shooting lenses like that on 400 iso film cooked well done in aggressive developers.

today almost all "high performance" lenses take advantage of telephoto design learnings, which has the consequences of making lenses longer. this isnt even that new of a phenomena, check these two 21mm lenses out:

telephoto-esque design





symmetrical design


----------



## Luftmensch (Feb 16, 2022)

icanhaschzbrgr said:


> Yet I don't see lenses as compact as Leica M mount offers.



Leica M are amazing lenses.... But they are not perfect!! The faster lenses can have strange focal plane and distorn characteristics. If you want a clinical copy lens, they would be an inappropriate choice. If you want a lens with some interesting character (say for reportage or street) then the lenses can be super sharp and contrasty.

Like any complex engineering problem, lens design is a whole series of tradeoffs. It is very difficult to make lenses that are excellent in every regard. When manufactures do, you can bet you will have to pay through the teeth for it. And if you did... you might not find you like the rendering/character of the lens!




icanhaschzbrgr said:


> Sure that was partly due to the lack of autofocus, but mainly due to shorter flange distance.



While it is true the flange distance can affect design choices... I would say market price and autofocus _are_ a big factor. The Leica M system does not have to design to these constraints. They can use higher performance glass/coatings because they are not limited by cost. Removing autofocus allows for a massive amount of design freedom! They can use heavier moving groups. They can build them into helicoids with really tight tolerances.

Again... it is all tradeoffs!


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 16, 2022)

Luftmensch said:


> Like any complex engineering problem, lens design is a whole series of tradeoffs. It is very difficult to make lenses that are excellent in every regard. When manufactures do, you can bet you will have to pay through the teeth for it. And if you did... you might not find you like the rendering/character of the lens!



this is the exact reason I dont own the Otus lenses. I HATE the rendering.


----------



## Luftmensch (Feb 16, 2022)

tcmx3 said:


> this is the exact reason I dont own the Otus lenses. I HATE the rendering.



Too 'clinical'?

Since you mentioned the Leica 100APO... and I assumed you meant R.... it is its own mini system. The close focus adaptor and 2x extender make it a very flexible lens. It is a good focal length for being 'clinical'. I might have been interested in the 100mm Otus if they had taken a similar approach.... Broadly; I am glad Otus exist, but they are too expensive, too big and too heavy for me!

Thats why I mentioned Voigtlander earlier. The new APO lenses are cheaper and smaller than Otus... and cheaper than Leica. Better bang for the buck if you are looking for that sort of thing. Perhaps not great character lenses... but good for macro/copy and landscape....


----------



## Bobby2shots (Feb 17, 2022)

MarcelNL said:


> makes sense, I was teetering on the brink of the abyss thinking one size fits all solutions work...should know better ;-)
> think I want a 24mm , a 50-ish, and something 80-ish and keep the 55-250 for snapshots far away...not as if I'll be doing wildlife shots far away anytime soon, that requires much more patience than I can manage.



Marcel, this video may give you some options to consider


----------



## MarcelNL (Feb 17, 2022)

thanks guys, I'm reading up on dpreview as well. For now the 50 (=80)mm is serving me well to rediscover and make up my mind where I want to go.


interestingly I have the 55-250mm EF-S STM lens and have never been impressed by it...


----------



## Bobby2shots (Feb 17, 2022)

and, here's an interesting article on


Lens Sharpness



and, here's an interesting read on various types of distortion,,,, how to identify them,,, and how to deal with and possibly correct them;








What is Field Curvature?







photographylife.com


----------



## MarcelNL (Feb 17, 2022)

that 55-250 is sharp enough , sort of, the main issue is that the color depth and contrast suck IMO. Sure it;s better than the 18-55 kit lens but it falls in roughly the same category of image equalizers...everything seems to go through a meeeh filter. I guess I'm sensitive to something in imagery, I loved my Pioneer Kuro Plasma for that something and now the LG OLED , it's something in a similar realm.

I just snagged up another Sigma, 30mm f1.4

So @inferno it does not matter that Nikon and Canon discontinue SLR lensen, there are plenty of others ;-)


----------



## Luftmensch (Feb 17, 2022)

MarcelNL said:


> so first 'kill', a Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART, first impression, WOW!





MarcelNL said:


> I just snagged up another Sigma, 30mm f1.4



You've got the bug son!!!


----------



## Bobby2shots (Feb 17, 2022)

Luftmensch said:


> You've got the bug son!!!



Yes he does,,,,, and,,, it may be contagious.


----------



## MarcelNL (Feb 18, 2022)

it's just that is all snapped into place when I figured out WHY I stopped using the camera, I have made great pictures with it but that was just the couple of days when I got to play with that L kit of my neighbor.
So that first good lens I bought a few days ago was a revelation, color, depth, sharpness it's all there...well the difference between cutting an onion in your mom's kitchen versus using lets say that Markin petty.


----------



## rstcso (Feb 18, 2022)

Bobby2shots said:


> Yes he does,,,,, and,,, it may be contagious.


Some of us have self-vaccinated, as evidenced by their B&H purchase history and corresponding reduction in bank balances.


----------



## MarcelNL (Feb 18, 2022)

If anything I suppose there could be money in developing a vaccine against the perception of quality...


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 18, 2022)

MarcelNL said:


> it's just that is all snapped into place when I figured out WHY I stopped using the camera, I have made great pictures with it but that was just the couple of days when I got to play with that L kit of my neighbor.
> So that first good lens I bought a few days ago was a revelation, color, depth, sharpness it's all there...well the difference between cutting an onion in your mom's kitchen versus using lets say that Markin petty.



like you said a great lens is like a great knife or a great guitar. it compels you to pick it up and push its limits and just enjoy the things it does well.

there is a small percentage of lenses that are just absolutely magic. Ive used a huge number of different systems and my general perception is that you should pick a flexible body and be willing to patchwork together a collection of lenses that speak to you. there is not a single company where I would feel happy only having lenses from, even Leica.

youre lucky that youre shooting on Canon to a certain degree as it gives you a lot of options. you could try and track down an OM 90/2 auto-macro. that lens has not been surpassed as an overall package.

and herein lies my original point. there is no justification to be upset that a platform that has been around for 60 years is getting discontinued. if you get rug-pulled after a few years OK that's lame but seriously expecting a lens mount to last forever is not only ludicrous but if you are thoughtful you will always be able to use those lenses which are special to you. turns out most of them are fixed focal length and have manual apertures anyway, and even when they dont people have come up with clever solutions to keep them going.


----------



## Bobby2shots (Feb 18, 2022)

rstcso said:


> Some of us have self-vaccinated, as evidenced by their B&H purchase history and corresponding reduction in bank balances.


 
Well. at least he'll get the "Shot" now.


----------



## MarcelNL (Feb 19, 2022)

tcmx3 said:


> youre lucky that youre shooting on Canon to a certain degree as it gives you a lot of options. you could try and track down an OM 90/2 auto-macro. that lens has not been surpassed as an overall package.



@tcmx3 which lens is that ? I'm too dumb to find it, macro used to be one of my favorite themes..
Is that the TS-E 90 with the tilt and shift included?


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 19, 2022)

MarcelNL said:


> @tcmx3 which lens is that ? I'm too dumb to find it, macro used to be one of my favorite themes..
> Is that the TS-E 90 with the tilt and shift included?











olympus om 90mm f2: Search Result | eBay


Buy and sell electronics, cars, fashion apparel, collectibles, sporting goods, digital cameras, baby items, coupons, and everything else on eBay, the world's online marketplace



www.ebay.com





you can easily use it on a canon with one of these:








ef to om for sale | eBay


Get the best deals for ef to om at eBay.com. We have a great online selection at the lowest prices with Fast & Free shipping on many items!



www.ebay.com


----------



## inferno (Feb 19, 2022)

btbyrd said:


> I want a Sony A7 IV real bad. Like "sell my most expensive knives" bad.
> 
> Tiny APS-C bodies designed for portability might be toylike with small sensors and tiny batteries. But there's nothing toylike about the current round of full frame offerings, especially the flagships. I'd take them over a DSLR any day. What's not to like? What are the advantages of mirrors?



that you dont have to stare on a goddamn screen with lag and limited rez.
that they are ready to shoot *immediately* when you turn them on, instead of booting up an OS.
that you dont have to power one of two screens the whole time to suck the battery dry.
3-4x longer battery life.
they feel and handle like real cameras. good ergos.
physical hardware buttons for most functions instead of menu diving.
and finally for me at least: when i press that shutter button i feel and hear that something is actually happening, instead of a beep.


----------



## inferno (Feb 19, 2022)

MarcelNL said:


> So @inferno it does not matter that Nikon and Canon discontinue SLR lensen, there are plenty of others ;-)



i know. but the others are also starting to discontinue stuff. tamron just removed the 85mm 1.8.
i have no problem buying 3rd party lenses. tamrons newer stuff is good. they are usually weather sealed, have VR/IS/VC etc etc.

here are some sites that have tested lenses. lab tests.



Lens Reviews





https://www.lenstip.com/lenses.html








Welcome to OpticalLimits!


OpticalLimits - Lens reviews and beyond!




www.opticallimits.com


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 19, 2022)

inferno said:


> that you dont have to stare on a goddamn screen with lag and limited rez.
> that they are ready to shoot *immediately* when you turn them on, instead of booting up an OS.
> that you dont have to power one of two screens the whole time to suck the battery dry.
> 3-4x longer battery life.
> ...



well luckily someone is still making a camera that checks *every *box on your list.

it's Leica.


----------



## inferno (Feb 19, 2022)

i'm not going to get a leica. its too expensive for what it is. its probably good stuff. but hey. i have to pay for it.


----------



## inferno (Feb 19, 2022)

actually thinking about getting a 5d mk4. but now they cost around 3k here, and a few months ago they were 2500. i think its worth 1800 or so. when these drop to below 2k i think i will probably have to get one.

thinking the same with the d850. i want it under 2k. but not sure if it will ever happen. would be good though. because then i would own the last ever flagship dslrs from both makers, the best they ever made.


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 19, 2022)

inferno said:


> i'm not going to get a leica. its too expensive for what it is. its probably good stuff. but hey. i have to pay for it.



I mean it might be too expensive for your budget but the price of their stuff is justifiable.

plus the resale on Leica stuff is fantastic and has sustained over time. most everything else has tanked but not Leica (or other actual high end gear like Hasselblad).

you are SO convinced you know what is good and right about cameras but you've got an incredibly, incredibly narrow view. why not actually try some stuff out instead of carping about it?


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 19, 2022)

"I think this camera is worth {x amount}" where does this come from?

why do you think what you would like to pay for a camera matters?


----------



## inferno (Feb 19, 2022)

it comes from that they are old models. using old cpus, memory, sensors etc that cost a lot less today. the tooling and r&d has been payed off since several years most likely. and for the 5d i dont even know how much r&d there is to be honest, its almost identical to the mark3.

why would i pay full price for that today? even nikon and canon themselves think its old tech since they are discontinuing the whole concept. so why?

----------

it matters to me since i'm simply not gonna pay 3 grand for a d850 or 5d. and then they wont sell any of these cameras to me.


----------



## inferno (Feb 19, 2022)

ok so which leicas are the good ones?
the m11? its 9 grand.
the sl-2/sl-2s? those are 7 grand
m10-r, 9 grand
q2, 5,5-6 grand


----------



## MarcelNL (Feb 19, 2022)

inferno said:


> ok so which leicas are the good ones?
> the m11? its 9 grand.
> the sl-2/sl-2s? those are 7 grand
> m10-r, 9 grand
> q2, 5,5-6 grand


I will buy this..


----------



## Lars (Feb 19, 2022)

You bastards guys made me buy my first camera. Just bought a used Canon EOS 550D for €100.


----------



## MarcelNL (Feb 19, 2022)

A 5Dmkiii body with under 80K clicks is affordable enough, 800 euro or so.


----------



## inferno (Feb 19, 2022)

also i might want a lens for my leica. 35mm. since its my fav focal length.
the L-mount 35mm is 5200usd now on bhphotovideo.
and the M-mounts are 3400, 3600, 3800, 4000, 5200, 6000, 6200, and 8200usd.
i think the one for 8200usd is my favorite so far. its the highest number so it must be really good.


----------



## inferno (Feb 19, 2022)

my philosophy with pretty much everything is this: always buy the most common system/standard for that particular application.

because then you maximize the amount of different products you can get. and then its just market forces. they compete with themselves on quality and price.
and in the end you as the end user get the highest price/performance ratio.

........................

for example with my bikes i always buy frames with regular threaded bsa bottom bracket. none of those 10 different press fit crapola systems that creaks and loosens.

crank arms. always 5 bolt 110mm or 5 bolt 130mm, why? because it was the defacto standard for 30-40 years. chainrings are cheap. 10-20€.
my buddy at work just wore out his chainrings. nothing special, its shimano 105. but its a 4 bolt, assymetric mount now. and they cost 50-60€ for the outer ring. but hey its a non problem. since there aren't any to buy anyway!!

he also needed a new cassette 11sp 11-32. these cost around 60€ for the cheapest ones shimano or sram makes. and they are all out of stock.

i recently updated my Ti winter bike. new cassette 11-32, new rear derrailleur sram x4, new shifter sram x4. and its all 8sp 
chains 11€ for the best kmc ones. cassettes 14€. rd 18€, shifter 15€, chainring 20€...

and then i also run 9sp stuff and its about 50% more expensive for everything. but still almost nothing compared to the newest stuff.
i have so much 8 and 9sp stuff its gonna last the rest of my life. and it cost almost nothing.

there is power in numbers.

edit: my buddy now wants me to convert his bike to 9sp. since you can actually get stuff for that system. and its cheap to run.


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 19, 2022)

inferno said:


> also i might want a lens for my leica. 35mm. since its my fav focal length.
> the L-mount 35mm is 5200usd now on bhphotovideo.
> and the M-mounts are 3400, 3600, 3800, 4000, 5200, 6000, 6200, and 8200usd.
> i think the one for 8200usd is my favorite so far. its the highest number so it must be really good.



youre coming off as supremely salty.

historically Leica resale has been extremely strong. this isnt like 10 years or 20 years btw, it's over 100. the prices make sense in the long run, period.

also this whole thread started with you crying about your lens mount being abandoned, well Leica has been running the M mount for way longer than Nikon ran F and doubly so for Canon EF but somehow when they do it it's not enough for you 

like idc if you dont want to spend that kind of money on a camera system but I would actually love it if you could take a step back and realize how limited your view on this subject is.


----------



## inferno (Feb 19, 2022)

tcmx3 said:


> youre coming off as supremely salty.
> 
> historically Leica resale has been extremely strong. this isnt like 10 years or 20 years btw, it's over 100.
> 
> ...



i'm just saying that they charge quite a chunk for everything they make. i mean a lot more than everybody else.
the median price for the m-mount 35's above is 4600usd. and for that sum i can get a new 5dmk4 and the 35mm f1.4L and thats is an extremely good 35mm.

---------

i just think its ****** of both nikon and canon to ditch their slr systems. nikon even released the d780 in 2020. and canon the 1d x mk3.
its basically planned obsolescence imo.

and i get it. many people like the mirrorless systems. but just as many don't. it has its positives. "what you see is what you get" in the evf. ibis. no blackout. smaller bodies. etc etc. _if_ one wants that.


----------



## WPerry (Feb 19, 2022)

inferno said:


> and i get it. many people like the mirrorless systems. but just as many don't.



Oh? "Just as many don't?" Canon and Nikon are certainly privy to their own sales numbers and what you're suggesting is non-sensical. Not only are you talking about a company leaving money on the table, you're talking about _competitors_ sitting across from each other at said table and both getting up and walking away at the same time. If there was any real future at the dSLR table, at least one of them would hang back and mop up the entire share that they'd been splitting when the other leaves. The reality is that they both probably sat there too long.


----------



## icanhaschzbrgr (Feb 19, 2022)

inferno said:


> that you dont have to stare on a goddamn screen with lag and limited rez.
> that they are ready to shoot *immediately* when you turn them on, instead of booting up an OS.
> that you dont have to power one of two screens the whole time to suck the battery dry.
> 3-4x longer battery life.
> ...


So let's have a close look on your complaints.
1) nobody forces you to look on a god damn screen. You can flip it. Turn it off. Use black tape on it. If that bothers you. 
Electronic viewfinders are awesome. Period. They are bright. They are configurable. They allow cool things like focus peaking. None of these possible with mirrors crap.

2) they shoot immediately. Except they don't. That have to flip the freaking mirror first. And once it's flipped your viewfinder is off. Niiiice feature. Especially when that mirrors jams. It doesn't happen often, but when it does — you'll love that.

I can't speak of canon/Nikon cameras. My omd em1m2 takes about a second from the moment I turn it on till it's ready to shoot. That means I turn it on before I even raise it to my face. My old Nikon D200 was pretty much the same. There were no such situations where I missed shot cause camera wasn't ready.

Some shots require processing time. Multiexposure, HDR or hi-res. That's something that my old mirror cameras weren't able to do. 

3) battery life is probably a thing. At least that's what I hear often. I bought a second battery. Haven't used it, cause one battery is enough for my daily needs. I guess pros have lots of batteries anyways. 

4) physical hardware buttons. Really? For what? The only real hardware button on my D200 was a lens lock button. Everything else is electronic. Same with my mirrorless Olympus. It has crap tons of buttons. And I can reprogram them to do what I want. So buttons has nothing to do with mirrors.

When I press shutter button on my Olympus I hear shutter curtains opening. Unless I configure silent mode where shutter is electronic (and that's what I use 90% time). I could probably configure some sounds, but I find it lame. Mechanical noise isn't in my requirements list to make a shot.

So really... get out from your cave. Modern mirrorless cameras evolved greatly and beat old mirror cameras in every single way. Except price (maybe)



P.S. Leica prices are ********. There are absolutely no reasons to buy one these days. Unless you want leica.


----------



## inferno (Feb 19, 2022)

WPerry said:


> Oh? "Just as many don't?" Canon and Nikon are certainly privy to their own sales numbers and what you're suggesting is non-sensical. Not only are you talking about a company leaving money on the table, you're talking about _competitors_ sitting across from each other at said table and both getting up and walking away at the same time. If there was any real future at the dSLR table, at least one of them would hang back and mop up the entire share that they'd been splitting when the other leaves. The reality is that they both probably sat there too long.



i dont. i wanted to. its just not good enough imo as a system/concept. yet. 

also pentax. one of the actual_ real_ camera makers. they are sticking with slr.

----------------

biggest gripes for me is battery life. and that one is easy to solve. but does anyone do anything about it? no. the whole grip area could be allocated to battery. smack in 2 18650 3200mah panasonic cells and you got about 24Wh energy. cameras are no high drain devices like electric bikes so you could even go for 3400mah cells.

in my fuji i have a 1200mah 8.4v and that equates to 8,7Wh. there would be 0 problems fitting 2 18650 in that grip. if they wanted. tripling the battery life.

then in my nikons 1900mah, 7v that equates to 14Wh says so on the battery.. they're not even ****ing trying to make this good. btw its the same battery in the z6 and z7 afaik. i mean just shifting to 18650 instead of proprietary sizes (they can still package 2 18650 in a plastic case though). would almost double the battery life. and 18650 is the cheapest battery on the planet per Wh. since its the most common size.

-----------

second. the ****ing evf itself. so just now i was fiddling around with my fuji and i was gonna shoot a handlebar for a bike. and somehow the lights here are interacting with the refresh rate of the evf so now i have a ****ing strobe in my eyes. and that is with the evf in "boost mode" because otherwise sometimes it simply clocks down in fps to like 4. for a second or 2. and now it sucks even more battery since in running the **** at max fps. and its a 3,7mp evf. 

you wont have this problem with a dslr...

---------------

third. all lenses are "focus by wire". not a single goddamn thing connecting the focus group to the focus ring. its all electronic.

i own 2 equvalent cameras i'd say. a d500 with a tamron macro, latest one. and then the x-h1 with the fuji 80mm macro. so when i want to go to 1:1 mag i just set the tamron to manual and turn the focus ring twice. bam. stop. closest focus. 1:1 mag. easy as that.

with the fuji i have to turn that ****ing ring for 10-15 seconds to get down to 1:1mag and then i even set it up to the speedier option here. and even then i have no idea if i'm actually at ****ing 1:1 mag!!!

(when shooting at 1:1 mag you dont AF. the AF systems dont work here. you just set the lens to max mag and then you move the camera back and forth to focus). 

this problem though could easily be fixed. yeah just make the lenses with mechanical coupling. like they did. like 3 years ago.

--------------

then we have the "mirrorless" lenses are smaller because yada yada. ok that turned out to be 100% BS. just look at the nikkor 24 and 20mm 1,8 in both slr and z config. the z lenses are longer and bigger. its almost like they took the dslr lenses added the ****ing f to z adapter and then just repackaged it.
way to ****ing go.

and not only that. the 20 and 24mm z lenses are worse optically than the z lenses. is it a ****ing joke?
the RF lenses though those are much better than the older canons. thinking the 50mm 1,2 and the 85mm 1,2. so good work canon!

also another thing with the new lenses. vignetting!! yeah thats now a thing. high ****ing vignetting.
lets have a look at the canon 50 1.2 in both ef and rf mounts.

ef






rf





wow this is ****ing worse. how can it be worse? when the lens is about twice as large. twice as expensive. and a brand new design?
and its not like you can magically make 3,24EV light drop-off just disappear...

well you can. you just have to raise the iso 3.24 times and increase the noise by that exact amount in the dark parts. i'm not saying the older 50mm was good here. but this one is new. it should be better. not worse. its has this new magical mirrorless mount that makes **** smaller and better right. or?

-------------

yeah you know i could go ****ing on and on here. but i feel this is plenty enough. if you feel different. cool for you. just get an r5 or z7. and be happy. its only a few grand. and then in like 2,7 years when the new mount comes out and these are obsolete. then its only a few grand more. who gives a **** right, its only money. and they are making more and more every day.

---------

sorry for going a bit off topic here.


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 19, 2022)

the absolute insane irony of a person who shoots extremely mid (both mechanically and optically) lenses going on and on about the build quality and optical quality of other mid lenses.


----------



## inferno (Feb 19, 2022)

icanhaschzbrgr said:


> So let's have a close look on your complaints.
> 1) nobody forces you to look on a god damn screen. You can flip it. Turn it off. Use black tape on it. If that bothers you.
> Electronic viewfinders are awesome. Period. They are bright. They are configurable. They allow cool things like focus peaking. None of these possible with mirrors crap.
> 
> ...



i guess its a clown world today too.

1: the ****ing evf is a screen!! ***.

2:
a nikon d850 takes 0,2 seconds from power on until it takes a shot.
a d750 - 0,5 seconds.
a d500 - 0,3 seconds

a z7 - 1,5 seconds
a z6 - 1,5 seconds

i have read the new canon R-series can take up to 3 seconds. and i have also read they can take 0,4 seconds. i'd guess its close to the Z nikons, or slightly worse.

*they have to flip the mirror first. *lol. ****ing lol. 

ok some numbers for the* d850. *below

Time from fully pressing shutter button to image capture using optical viewfinder.
*Full Autofocus Single Point (Center) AF-S *0.076 second. lol.
*Full Autofocus Single Point (Center) AF-S *for the *z7 * 0.215/0.207/0.156 second

For most cameras, shutter lag is less in manual focus than autofocus, but usually not as fast as when the camera is "prefocused"
*Manual focus *0.052 second









Nikon D850 Review - Performance


Nikon D850 Review - D850 Performance



www.imaging-resource.com












Nikon D500 Review - Performance


Nikon D500 Review - D500 Performance



www.imaging-resource.com












Nikon Z7 Review - Performance


Nikon Z7 Review - Z7 Performance



www.imaging-resource.com












Nikon Z6 Review - Performance


Nikon Z6 Review - Z6 Performance



www.imaging-resource.com






4: buttons like light metering, af-area, af type, iso, compensation, white balance of course. what buttons are you thinking about?

5: extra. if think in way, shape or form that your olympus m4/3 is gonna shoot better pics than a full frame canon/nikon dslr. you are seriosuly delusional. it has 1/4 the sensor area. and 4x the noise for a given iso. and dynamic range and color depth goes down the same way with size. just so you know. but hey if you actually did know your wouldn't have posted that **** right. now you do at least.


----------



## inferno (Feb 19, 2022)

tcmx3 said:


> the absolute insane irony of a person who shoots extremely mid (both mechanically and optically) lenses going on and on about the build quality and optical quality of other mid lenses.



what about the absolute insane irony of someone recommending leica as some kind of all round good option? 

i would have to pay 7 grand for the body plus 4 grand just to get a real camera from leica with a 35mm. and with nikon i'd pay about 2-3k body plus 2k. canon 2,5-3k plus 1,5k for the exact same thing. talking body and a good 35mm. 

so its fun and all that you there on your high leica horse can look down on all us plebs that have to use the crappy nikon and canon systems. 
but in reality. its just as good if not better. for 1/3 the price. why the **** do you think all pros shoot nikon or canon (or lately sony)? 

wake the **** up man.


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 19, 2022)

inferno said:


> so its fun and all that you there on your high leica horse can look down on all us plebs that have to use the crappy nikon and canon systems.
> but in reality. its just as good if not better. for 1/3 the price. why the **** do you think all pros shoot nikon or canon (or lately sony)?



they dont.

pros shoot all sorts of stuff. Leica, especially medium format, is very popular with professional photogs. before digital, medium and large format were the "serious" professional's tools. walk into a good studio today and you'll see hasselblad and phase one. Nikon and Canon? those are used mostly by journos and sports folks who need to get any shot over getting a good one.

once again you merely reveal that you have a very, very limited view of all of this. the problem isnt your budget, it's how out of wack your own judgment of your knowledge is to reality.

I dont agree with @icanhaschzbrgr on much wrt this thread but he was absolutely right to point out that in the end it really doesnt matter how much you think you know, the manufacturers completely disagree with you.

except, ironically, Leica.


----------



## WPerry (Feb 19, 2022)

I only shoot with manual focus and manual aperture lenses. *shrug* Some are native Sony E mount (like my Zeiss Loxia) and some are adapted lenses (like my C/Y Contax Zeiss or Zeiss ZF [Nikon F-mount]). If you want to shoot manual focus and/or aperture, mirrorless is 100% the way to go.


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 19, 2022)

Sony is absolutely killing it right now btw. The A7 platform has been incredible and the lenses they're selling are really good, though you can shoot anything on them so again Id suggest to people they look at manual focus, manual aperture lenses as you'll be able to keep them forever.


----------



## Bobby2shots (Feb 20, 2022)

tcmx3 said:


> Sony is absolutely killing it right now btw. The A7 platform has been incredible and the lenses they're selling are really good, though you can shoot anything on them so again Id suggest to people they look at manual focus, manual aperture lenses as you'll be able to keep them forever.



There's a place for both; I can't imagine shooting wildlife, or birds-in-flight,, or sports,,,, or video,,or weddings, or pets and children,,, in manual. When the right opportunity comes along, you can also manually over-ride auto-focus in many cases. Manual's great for landscapes, macro, or portraits, or any still subject for that matter. The application dictates the choice. One is not necessarily "better" than the other in my book.


----------



## Barmoley (Feb 20, 2022)

Bobby2shots said:


> There's a place for both; I can't imagine shooting wildlife, or birds-in-flight,, or sports,,,, or video,,or weddings, or pets and children,,, in manual. When the right opportunity comes along, you can also manually over-ride auto-focus in many cases. Manual's great for landscapes, macro, or portraits, or any still subject for that matter. The application dictates the choice. One is not necessarily "better" than the other in my book.


I was about to say the same. Shooting sports or wild life with manual can be done and there are some amazing examples, but it is very, very hard. Leica would also not be my first choice for sports photography neither would be medium format, but for some types of shooting these are top choices.


----------



## tcmx3 (Feb 20, 2022)

Bobby2shots said:


> There's a place for both; I can't imagine shooting wildlife, or birds-in-flight,, or sports,,,, or video,,or weddings, or pets and children,,, in manual. When the right opportunity comes along, you can also manually over-ride auto-focus in many cases. Manual's great for landscapes, macro, or portraits, or any still subject for that matter. The application dictates the choice. One is not necessarily "better" than the other in my book.



sure, there are things for which auto-focus is better. as I said early, photojournalism and sports are the obvious cases

but you have to accept when you buy a lens like that, or one with an electronically controlled apertured with nothing on the lens, you are buying a product that will almost certainly not last you in the long run.

I dunno about weddings/pets/children being bad for manual focus. I and tons of others have used manual stuff for that. it's actually not that bad, and Leicas are actually quite popular at weddings. those are more to preference.

as far as video goes, manual focus is still king. the vast, vast majority of cine lenses are manual focus. there's a lot of reasons for that, frankly. obviously on slrs there are complications with even using autofocus at all during video, mirror is better but it's still not an ideal experience. I do not believe Arri offers a SINGLE autofocus lens and afaik they are the most popular brand right now.

let's not forget manual focus lenses make up the majority of the history of lens designs. if you actually pick up one of the old manual telephoto lenses, for example, you may find their usage a lot difference than trying to do the same things with an autofocus lens in manual focus override mode. these were specialty tools and they work better than you might expect.

lots of great photos of things that fly even faster than birds with manual focus super-teles like this monster:






if you go and look at old Olympus magazines they are full of shots like this:





I dont know how this isn't obvious but there is a long, long history and wider context for photography than folks seem to want to admit exists and the lack of that context will cause you to make spurious conclusions and bad recommendations


----------



## Bobby2shots (Feb 21, 2022)

tcmx3 said:


> sure, there are things for which auto-focus is better. as I said early, photojournalism and sports are the obvious cases
> 
> but you have to accept when you buy a lens like that, or one with an electronically controlled apertured with nothing on the lens, you are buying a product that will almost certainly not last you in the long run.
> 
> ...



Don't get me wrong, I like both, and agree with you "almost" 100%. Success rates though, are probably far higher with today's advanced AF systems,,, "eye-detect" etc. Regarding manual-for-video, I presume a lot of that had to do with auto-focus motor-noise.

For myself, as I stated earlier, I'm very impressed with the manual-focus Zeiss Milvus Macro lens, and it may be the next lens I purchase. I'd like a Nikkor 200mm F;4 macro, but they'cve been discontinued for years now. My old kit from the early '70's, was a Canon F-1, and all my lenses were manual. I also mentioned earlier, that the most "fun" I've had with a camera, was the Olympus S10 with manual focus 28-200mm zoom. When I say "fun" I'm talking about handling,,, not image quality. The S10 was a small-sensor camera, discontinued in 2016 (??)


----------



## Williamchan87 (Feb 26, 2022)

Isn't a short throw focus typically said to be a lower class lens? It's is faster and nice until you are playing manual focus on hair thin focus.

Also the X-H1 is one of Fujifilms largest failure in the last decade. Mainly cause the screwed themselves over with the X-T4.

The Prosumer DSLR's do have their areas of expertise, but the death of them also just tells you that not many people are purchasing it, and like all business, if it's not selling, and cost too much to keep, then it might be time to let go, espeacially cause its NIKON and CANON who have been massively loosing users.

Pentax is kinda screwed, cause they did have a mirrorless series but it was so bad that they lost so much money, they booked it as soon as possible, I'm actually surprised they are still making lenses etc though.

Speaking of D500/D750/D800/E/D850 (used all under 20k actuations), few came up for sale recently with a random super tele lens like 500mm F5.6 i believe, or 300 F4 for under 2000 CAD, but i think all sold very fast.


----------



## MarcelNL (Mar 8, 2022)

Brief update, I ended my mission for better glass buying a Canon EF70-200 L(f4), complementing the Sigma ART 30mm and 50mm I previously bought.
Now for some dabbling in Darktable and making pictures, even the weather cleared up!


----------



## Bobby2shots (Mar 8, 2022)

MarcelNL said:


> Brief update, I ended my mission for better glass buying a Canon EF70-200 L(f4), complementing the Sigma ART 30mm and 50mm I previously bought.
> Now for some dabbling in Darktable and making pictures, even the weather cleared up!



Congratulations Marcel,,, looks like you're on a roll. Have fun, and post some pics when you get around to it. Happy shooting.


----------



## Bobby2shots (Mar 8, 2022)

One point we should all keep in mind is, "pro's" make their living with their gear. The gear is a revenue-generating business expense against which you can write off interest and depreciation, etc. "Picking" outstanding gear is easy,,,, for most hobbyists and enthusiasts however, paying for it, is (or, can be) quite another matter. 

When a new-comer comes along,,, most have no idea how specialized the world of photography can be. To them, a $400.-$700. budget might seem to be enough to get into "serious all-rounder" photography, and, that's a legitimate assumption. As their experience grows however, they might evolve to niche photography,, leaning towards wildlife photography,,, or a subset such as "birds-in-flight", etc. Some will enjoy macro or micro-photography,,, or portrait photography, or shooting weddings,,, landscapes, architecture,,, jounalism,,, "street",,events,,, sports (indoor and outdoor), fashion photography,, travel,,, food,,, astro-photography,,, table-top photography,,,there's just no end to it, and most of those specialized worlds require specialised gear and accessories. Back-packs,,tripods,,monopods,,C-stands,,,boom-stands,,ball-heads,,, pano heads, gimbal heads,,video-heads, filters, flash, strobes, reflectors,, light modifiers, ... and lets not forget post-processing,, or printing,

And with all that, I've not even mentioned cameras or lenses.


----------



## MarcelNL (Mar 9, 2022)

hobby photography, IMO is yet another rabbit hole and everyone digs his own hole. I've seen extremely good pictures made on mediocre gear and crappy pictures made using the best gear. The eye/mind behind the camera is what matters most IMO. (same with knives, buying a TF does not make you a three star chef)

A professional photographer (as any other start-up 'éntrepeneur') will/should also need to keep an eye on cost/benefit, there are far too many folks starting a business going crazy investing in ultra high end gear only to find out that they go under three years later because their cost base is too high for the revenue they make at that point.


----------



## Bobby2shots (Mar 9, 2022)

I'm presently following this guy,,,, Nigel Danson,,, Superb photographer,, and outstanding teacher/communicator. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!!



https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkJld-AoXurbT2jDnfM8qiA


----------



## Bobby2shots (Mar 22, 2022)

Here;s a very interesting discussion, featuring Hugh Brownstone, involving Leica and Nikon (among others) Hugh Brownstone and his wife, Claudia, are film-makers, and both are Leica shooters/owners.


----------

