New system

C

Charles B

Suspended / Banned
Messages
88
Name
Charles
Edit My Images
Yes
Foe years, although a keen photograper I’ve never spent very much on equipment. A Nikon D3000 and a kit lens has been the full list. Now I’m retired I have both more time to spend on getting out and about - landscapes and travel photography with a bit of close up work being my main interests - and a bit more disposable income to use. My budget would be about £2000 for a new ‘system’ body and lenses. Any advice most welcome.
 
Charles B said:
Foe years, although a keen photograper I’ve never spent very much on equipment. A Nikon D3000 and a kit lens has been the full list. Now I’m retired I have both more time to spend on getting out and about - landscapes and travel photography with a bit of close up work being my main interests - and a bit more disposable income to use. My budget would be about £2000 for a new ‘system’ body and lenses. Any advice most welcome.
Click to expand...
What can the camera not do that you want it to do? :thinking: The D3000 is a nice size and weight for a travel camera.

The lens you have may not be able to take macro images, but for everything else, what can it not do? :thinking:
 
Who says it has to do any of it ... the OP has just retired, has a bit of cash to spare and maybe just feels like using some to upgrade his equipment.

To the OP, I don't really know much about Nikon (if you are wanting to stay with them) but I'm sure there are plenty of others on here that will be more than willing to help you spend your money ;)
 
Welcome to TP Charles!

I kinda agree with Red. My advice to my students is always that they really need to discover how their current equipment is limiting them or they face the risk of buying things they don't need, or worse - buying something that won't do what they want - potentially leaving them short of cash for the things they *do* need. The amount of people I see who want to buy new gear to get sharper images is astounding. I would say 90% of the time the problem is shutter too slow for one reason or another or it's down to missed focus. Almost 50% of the time, I'm telling people to get a tripod rather than new gear!

Also consider things non-camera/lens related such as the aforementioned tripods (you'll probably need one for landscapes and a £20 one with £2k of gear on it is likely to get you poor results), and filters (useful for landscape photography), and maybe a decent bag to cart it all around. What about post processing? Do do you want to print your own? What about external flashes for macro? All these things will suck up your cash.

You're not completely clear on the level you're at (or aiming for) so it's really difficult to advise. However if there are certain areas you feel your equipment is lacking, there is probably quite a bit this community can do to help.
 
How important is size and weight?
 
Thank you, all. I do understand that buying new equipment will not turn me into an ace photographer - certainly not overnight. I suppose it’s partly the lure of the new, and getting a system that I can happily use in most situations and weight is somewhat of a factor when travelling around. As to my level - I like to think that I’m somewhere around ‘improving intermediate’.
 
Charles B said:
Thank you, all. I do understand that buying new equipment will not turn me into an ace photographer - certainly not overnight. I suppose it’s partly the lure of the new, and getting a system that I can happily use in most situations and weight is somewhat of a factor when travelling around. As to my level - I like to think that I’m somewhere around ‘improving intermediate’.
Click to expand...

How about a used Nikon D750 for around £800-£1000 plus some quality lenses ?

The older 80-200mm f2/8 two ring goes for around £400 used leaving a good chunk for a second hand wider zoom, plus a prime or two for Portraits, Macro.

Dougie.
 
Mike.P said:
Who says it has to do any of it ... the OP has just retired, has a bit of cash to spare and maybe just feels like using some to upgrade his equipment.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with spending money if you have it, and there will be many who will happily spec a system on just their personal bias with little information. If that is what the OP wants then there will be many with various options to spin his head around, but with a little bit of information, hopefully choices can be narrowed down a bit. ;)

Mike.P said:
To the OP, I don't really know much about Nikon (if you are wanting to stay with them) but I'm sure there are plenty of others on here that will be more than willing to help you spend your money ;)
Click to expand...
With a bit more info, Nikon may or may not be the best choice.

Does the OP want full frame or is happy with the crop sensor? The choice could affect size and weight. Is mirrorless an option, or is it just DSLR? Again, may have an effect on size and weight. The D3000 is pretty much as small and light as DSLR's get, and compares to some mirrorless. What lenses does the OP think he will need, as that may put a bias to one system or another.
 
If weight is a concern then a DLR might not be the best option, compact system cameras have come on leaps and bounds since the D3000 and will now do all that a DSLR will do, and more (except maybe for continuous AF). They really are fantastic for travel and landscape.

So, the suggestion of the Fuji XT2 is a good one, or maybe a Sony A7 of some variety or even micro 4/3 (Olympus/Panasonic). Look them up :)
 
Charles B said:
Foe years, although a keen photograper I’ve never spent very much on equipment. A Nikon D3000 and a kit lens has been the full list. Now I’m retired I have both more time to spend on getting out and about - landscapes and travel photography with a bit of close up work being my main interests - and a bit more disposable income to use. My budget would be about £2000 for a new ‘system’ body and lenses. Any advice most welcome.
Click to expand...
If you want the best of the best image quality and high DR then go for a FF DSLR or mirrorless camera (medium and large format will be out of budget). A used D810 or D800e would make a great landscape camera, and would leave some money over for lenses. If you don’t need super fast AF then a used Sony A7 or A7 Mark II would also be a good option.

If you want great image quality but not the weight of a DSLR then imo the best compromise is the m4/3 system. Great images in a small relatively lightweight package. The EM1 with 12-40mm (24-80mm eq) f2.8 is my go to travel system. Great build quality with fantastic weather sealing and great IQ. Ok when pixel peeping it’s not quite as good as FF and I doesn’t handle noise as well, but it’s bloody good. The only other (possible) disadvantage is that you’re never going to get the shallow DOF that FF offers (all things considered equal), but for macro and landscape you don’t want that anyway.

Fuji gets a lot of love, but may not be the best for landscapes. Another pretty light option is the Sony a6xxx range.
 
Thank you so much for all your replies and the time and thought you’ve put into the advice - much appreciated. A lot of food for thought. Must say I hadn’t considerd the micro four thirds route. The size and weight of some of these would be an attraction as we do a lot of walking around cities etc. but is the image quality as good? I sometimes print up to A3 size. Thanks, again, what a great forum.
 
Charles B said:
Thank you so much for all your replies and the time and thought you’ve put into the advice - much appreciated. A lot of food for thought. Must say I hadn’t considerd the micro four thirds route. The size and weight of some of these would be an attraction as we do a lot of walking around cities etc. but is the image quality as good? I sometimes print up to A3 size. Thanks, again, what a great forum.
Click to expand...
At my work I have 3 A3 prints, 2 from the D750 and 1 from my old EM5-II and you wouldn't know they'd been taken with different cameras. These are the said images (best viewed on flickr as TP is softening images)


Owler Tor Sunset re-edit by TDG-77, on Flickr

P6132016 re-edit by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_6109 re-edited by TDG-77, on Flickr


And a few more with the EM1 (I don't profess to be a great tog by the way, and there are plenty more better examples on the web)

PB303847-Pano by TDG-77, on Flickr

PC014313 by TDG-77, on Flickr

P7092340 re-edit mono 3 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
What great images, Snerkler. I see you own two distinct systems. If I may ask, what are the pros and cons of this?
 
Charles B said:
What great images, Snerkler. I see you own two distinct systems. If I may ask, what are the pros and cons of this?
Click to expand...
THanks, very kind. I have the Nikon FF (now a D850) for the DR, noise handling, AF performance and shallow DOF, oh and ability to crop. However, it's a big heavy system and not ideal (for me) for travel, sightseeing and the odd day out etc and prefer a much lighter system. The Olympus offers me this with very little loss of IQ.
 
Charles B said:
Thank you so much for all your replies and the time and thought you’ve put into the advice - much appreciated. A lot of food for thought. Must say I hadn’t considerd the micro four thirds route. The size and weight of some of these would be an attraction as we do a lot of walking around cities etc. but is the image quality as good? I sometimes print up to A3 size. Thanks, again, what a great forum.
Click to expand...

I have no direct experience of micro four thirds, but I've carefully considered the effect of the same quality criterion -- "I sometimes print up to A3 size" -- on my own choice of crop rather than full frame camera. I'm sure you will be able to print A3, or indeed A3+ (which many A3 printers will do), if the image you're printing was taken with a good lens, at a low ISO, and isn't cropped too much for composition reasons. Where the bigger heavier more expensive bigger sensor cameras score is being able to keep up to that level of quality when conditions aren't quite so favourable -- more cropping, more shadow lifting, higher ISOs, not so good a lens, handheld rather than tripod, and so on.

In other words your quality criterion of "sometimes A3" depends on what "sometimes" means. If it means you want to be able to get up to A3 image quality when you take care and try a bit a bit harder, such as using a tripod when your friend beside you with his full frame DSLR is shooting handheld, then check out the image quality which your micro four thirds system of choice can get up to in the hands of good photographer who is taking care. On the other hand if "sometimes" means that you only sometimes go to the expense of printing A3, but want to have the maximum choice of images up to that technical quality level, then the bigger sensor cameras score.

Don't forget, however, that the bigger and heavier your camera system is, the less likely you are to have it with you when that unexpected and wonderful photo opportunity turns up. :-)
 
Funnily enough I find myself in a similar boat as the OP, in my case approaching retirement so looking to set myself up beforehand. I have a Nikon D300 with kit 18-200mm plus my wife's D5100 with 18-55 and 70-300. So we have plenty of crop sensor reasonably good kit with fair quality lenses. However the kit-lover in me wants something new. Maybe that's how the OP feels?

I am torn between a Pentax outfit, K1-ii plus a couple of very good lenses (to go FF), or the Olympus EM-D M1-ii plus likewise a couple of very good lenses (going m43). It's probably an either-or decision. I'm wondering if these two options are similar to what might suit the OP? My gut tells me that the Pentax outfit satisfies both of us in terms of both landscapes and travel?
 
Last edited:
It's great you have a bit of disposable income to use and with careful choices you could see massive improvements in image quality, but I'd also consider whether it's worth spending some money on a workshop to improve your techniques and be able to get the most from your kit.
As for kit itself, the thing is to work out where does your current kit let you down?

Also, youtuber, travel/landscape photographer Brendan van Son just posted a video on this issue of "should I upgrade my camera?". Worth watching for a little food for thought:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zb0Lf6ukhY
 
Lindsay56 said:
I am torn between a Pentax outfit, K1-ii plus a couple of very good lenses (to go FF), or the Olympus EM-D M1-ii plus likewise a couple of very good lenses (going m43). It's probably an either-or decision. I'm wondering if these two options are similar to what might suit the OP? My gut tells me that the Pentax outfit satisfies both of us in terms of both landscapes and travel?
Click to expand...

l am always impressed by my K-1 and for landscape and travel the K-1 II is an excellent choice but add a couple of very good lenses (say the 15-30mm and 24-70mm) you are looking at way over 2k ... and it's certainly not a lightweight option by any means.
 
We have APS-C (Sony A58) M43 (Olympus E-M10) and Nikon FX (D610) here, so to a degree I can can compare sensor performance for you.

In good lighting with good lenses there's little to choose in image quality between them IF you can keep to base ISO on the smaller sensor cameras and your exposures are good. In these circumstances even viewing 100% crops it's hard to tell.

However there's 2 places the smaller sensors lose out, and that's 1) when lighting is difficult & you need higher ISO and 2) when you need to process an image a bit harder to get the best from it. Smaller sensors seem more prone to finging, halos, artifacts from pushing the processing compared with larger ones, and while it's partly lens dependent, I notice more issues with the smaller formats even using good glass (zeiss) on the Sony compared with more ordinary lenses on the Nikon.

The other thing is that, for me, FX can give a greater sense of depth to an image, probably because of the shallower depth of field that goes with the territory. And control of DoF is more restricted on the smaller formats, especially M43, compared with FX. At the moment I'm happy to carry a medium weight DSLR & bag of lenses around, but there will probably come a time when the weight is more important than image quality.
 
snerkler said:
If you want the best of the best image quality and high DR then go for a FF DSLR or mirrorless camera (medium and large format will be out of budget). A used D810 or D800e would make a great landscape camera, and would leave some money over for lenses. If you don’t need super fast AF then a used Sony A7 or A7 Mark II would also be a good option.

If you want great image quality but not the weight of a DSLR then imo the best compromise is the m4/3 system. Great images in a small relatively lightweight package. The EM1 with 12-40mm (24-80mm eq) f2.8 is my go to travel system. Great build quality with fantastic weather sealing and great IQ. Ok when pixel peeping it’s not quite as good as FF and I doesn’t handle noise as well, but it’s bloody good. The only other (possible) disadvantage is that you’re never going to get the shallow DOF that FF offers (all things considered equal), but for macro and landscape you don’t want that anyway.

Fuji gets a lot of love, but may not be the best for landscapes. Another pretty light option is the Sony a6xxx range.
Click to expand...
Toby,why might not the Fuji be best for landscapes,lack of FF? ;)
 
ancient_mariner said:
We have APS-C (Sony A58) M43 (Olympus E-M10) and Nikon FX (D610) here, so to a degree I can can compare sensor performance for you.

In good lighting with good lenses there's little to choose in image quality between them IF you can keep to base ISO on the smaller sensor cameras and your exposures are good. In these circumstances even viewing 100% crops it's hard to tell.

However there's 2 places the smaller sensors lose out, and that's 1) when lighting is difficult & you need higher ISO and 2) when you need to process an image a bit harder to get the best from it. Smaller sensors seem more prone to finging, halos, artifacts from pushing the processing compared with larger ones, and while it's partly lens dependent, I notice more issues with the smaller formats even using good glass (zeiss) on the Sony compared with more ordinary lenses on the Nikon.

The other thing is that, for me, FX can give a greater sense of depth to an image, probably because of the shallower depth of field that goes with the territory. And control of DoF is more restricted on the smaller formats, especially M43, compared with FX. At the moment I'm happy to carry a medium weight DSLR & bag of lenses around, but there will probably come a time when the weight is more important than image quality.
Click to expand...
I find FF are more malleable in PP too. Not sure if it's the DR, noise handling, colour depth, magnification, or a combo of all of these. That being said, you can still push m4/3 quite hard (depending on ISO).
 
I had FF in Nikon & Canon flavours and now have M43.

They will go to A3 print size easily if the photo's any good and sharp to begin with.
 
snerkler said:
I find FF are more malleable in PP too. Not sure if it's the DR, noise handling, colour depth, magnification, or a combo of all of these. That being said, you can still push m4/3 quite hard (depending on ISO).
Click to expand...

I think it's the lower magnification factor - borders and other places of sharp contrast changes tend to be relatively narrower and so issues take longer to become obvious, as well as the lower noise.

TBH a well shot image in good light from a decent compact with 1:2.3" sensor will print to A3 quite acceptably. It's images that have exposure problems that will be harder to make acceptable from a small sensor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top