Speaking of Sensors, what are the key factors?

I am finding the weight of my big Dslr's  just too much, my age, 70 plus and the fact I am riddled with arthritis in the spine, hips, knees and ankles seems to indicate my big rig days are over. I sold my D800 but have kept my D700 and the little D5100.

I love the ease of carrying the little d5100 but miss the look of the D800/700 with the better glass. I have the Nikon 24-70, 70-200, 300F4, 105 f2.8, plus assorted smaller Nikon primes, non of the primes are AF-S though. I got the Tamron 18-270 as a light weight walk about lens for the D5100.It is OK, just

The articulated screen on the D5100 is great and means I can use it on a ground pod  with live view to take images of the small native orchids like I used to up till 18 months ago. The quality or the look of the images is just missing a bit though with the little D5100. I have a new 40mm Nikon Macro lens arriving tomorrow so maybe

I would like to change over to the Sony A7r but am put off by the lens options at the moment. I know I can get an adapter to use my Nikon lens but the weight is not something I want to carry over.

I was thinking I would wait a year or so for the Sony and just get the D5300 with the improved focusing options over the D5100 and the newer sensor till Sony gets its lens line up into a better place. Get some newer primes with AF-S to work with the D5300 till then.

The sensor is said to be the same as in the D7100. Are the main differences between similar sensors in the processor the different cameras use? With good glass will the look of the images be improved? The 300 F4 files look good from the D5100 but the 24-70 looks average, probably a lens calibration problem. The articulated screen is the big plus for me here other than that I would not really be considering the little Nikon. The Sony has an articulated screen too plus the light weight hence my desire to go that direction.

Is there any other options that have articulated screens and are light weight that will give good image quality?

 

Articulated screen is really a good thing to have if you ask me. There are certainly other options out there that are also light weight and give good image quality (depending on how you view your images and what you use them for). You could take a look at some of those smaller mirrorless cameras for starter.

Kim wrote: I would like to change over to the Sony A7r but am put off by the lens options at the moment. I know I can get an adapter to use my Nikon lens but the weight is not something I want to carry over.

What makes you think that long or fast lenses are any lighter when they are produced for the Sony A7? The removal of the mirror in that system makes the camera a smidgen lighter, lens weight though is in direct relation to the lens speed, image circle requirement (for short lenses) and focal length (for long lenses). Nobody can cheat the physical laws there - so if you want equivalent lenses to your current Nikon ones then you can expect the Sony lens to be within a few % in weight and size of the Nikon lens you know. Only if you give up on lens speed, focal length and lens quality you can go lighter.

I will soon enough be rowing a similar boat. My plan is to hire a person to carry all my equipment, maintaining a silent 50+ foot distance behind me delivering the assembled body, lens, tripod...or refreshment I request in a moments notice. Also...two people in the woods (or where ever) are exponentially safer that one.

Karl Günter Wünsch wrote:

Kim wrote: I would like to change over to the Sony A7r but am put off by the lens options at the moment. I know I can get an adapter to use my Nikon lens but the weight is not something I want to carry over.

What makes you think that long or fast lenses are any lighter when they are produced for the Sony A7? [snip] Nobody can cheat the physical laws there - so if you want equivalent lenses to your current Nikon ones then you can expect the Sony lens to be within a few % in weight and size of the Nikon lens you know. Only if you give up on lens speed, focal length and lens quality you can go lighter.

Or consider cameras with smaller sensors.

Well, I know it is almost heresy on this forum, but I sure am liking my m4/3 camera. The weight reduction is very significant and I feel I have lost nothing in quality from my Canon 7D. The build quality is also very high and Olympus glass is absolutely first rate. There are some differences, electronic view finder, 16MP half full frame sensor, etc, but I find more pluses than minuses. When Olympus comes out with the 40-150 f/2.8 and 300 f/4 next year I will be unloading all my Canon gear and going completely with Olympus.
Not only is the body lighter and smaller, but the lenses are correspondingly lighter and smaller as well. A viable option for very good to high quality images with a kit that is easy to hold and small and light weight for travel.

There sure is a lot of focus on sensors these days (pun intended).   To go lighter, people say go to a crop system.  With a crop sensor, one uses shorter focal length lenses for the same field of view.  For example, a 50 mm f/2 lens on a full frame becomes 25 mm f/2 on a 2x crop camera for the same field of view.  The 25mm f/2 lens gathers 4x less light than does the 50 mm f/2 lens in the same exposure time, so you lose 2 stops of light.  It is the lens choice that reduced the light, not the smaller sensor, and thus it is that light loss that makes the images look noisier.

Having said that, the simplest way to reduce weight is a crop sensor with smaller lenses, knowing one will be giving up some image quality.  If you want to do action, that means DSLR with phase detect AF for best performance.  Then perhaps a small entry level DSLR with its crop factor.  Then go with slow zoom lenses.  In capable hands, one can still make great images.

For more reach and static subjects with even less weight, a superzoom P&S camera does impressively well for its size and weight.

So going smaller weight means smaller lenses, thus a light loss.  Without changing bodies, change to a f/4-f/5.6 zoom, and the consumer models can be quite light.  Of course not as sharp either.

Going smaller means lose something else besides weight and bulk.

Roger

Hi Roger,

While it is true what you say about the limitations of smaller sensors & their lenses, it does not address the one aspect that should be as important as size or weight to a prospective user of m43 or 1' sensors:  Is the quality good enough for 90%+ of my needs?  Losing 2 stops of light sounds like a big deal but I would argue that this will only be a problem to those who obsess about low light or very large prints. I bought into a m43 system to replace the pathetic P&S offerings but it has slowly replaced all but my Canon macro & birding gear. m43 is good enough for many of my needs, I'm waiting for longer macros, fast CAF and 400mm+ primes for m43.
Personally, I find the price premium for these smaller systems the biggest drawback. That 300/4 promised by Olympus had better be competitive with those from Canon & Nikon. I agree with you about the option of f/4-5.6 zooms. Canon may not be serious about mirrorless, but anyone notice that they now have a very decent collection of these zooms that go from 16-400mm (35mm equivalent).  Optically they give up little to the m43 brothers, they are cheaper and with a DSLR are more capable.

Cheers,

Jim

Thanks for the replies and the advice.

Steven I do have a son who will come with me on some occasions to carry my equipment to landscape locations and is very patient and attentive to me his mother but it is not a full time option and I value my independence still. Plus I love the peace and solitude of being out in the wilderness by my self.

So far no one has really spoken about the sensors in terms of image quality differences from the same sensors being a variant of the processor used by each camera. I was hoping EJ or Roger would add some information on that.

I do know that I need to make some compromises in the quest to reduce weight too, its just making the right ones and I cant help thinking that the lens options are the biggest draw back at this point in time. But then I am reminded that an image I took recently with my little D5100 and the consumer grade 18-270 Tamron took out first place in an international photo competition so maybe we worry to much about lens quality.

Kim wrote: So far no one has really spoken about the sensors in terms of image quality differences from the same sensors being a variant of the processor used by each camera. I was hoping EJ or Roger would add some information on that.

I do know that I need to make some compromises in the quest to reduce weight too, its just making the right ones and I cant help thinking that the lens options are the biggest draw back at this point in time. But then I am reminded that an image I took recently with my little D5100 and the consumer grade 18-270 Tamron took out first place in an international photo competition so maybe we worry to much about lens quality.

And perhaps we worry too much about sensors too.  My first image placing in Natures Best was made as a jpeg only with a 6-megapixel camera, cropped to 3 megapixels and printed full page in Natures Best, has been sold in galleries, and stolen by painters:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/ga ... f-600.html

Regarding sensors, those made in the last few years are all pretty similar in sensitivity per unit area.  There is some variation in downstream electronics, but for the Landscape photographer dealing with relatively static subjects, nothing that can't be compensated for.  The main factor in sensors is sensor size and pixel size. both physical characteristics that one chooses with the camera model.  If one encounters a situation requiring more dynamic range, simply do multiple exposures for HDR.  If you encounter a scene where you want more resolution, do a mosaic.  Want wider view and don't have a wide lens?  Do a mosaic.  These situations can usually be executed faster than changing lenses or camera bodies.  That saves weight in the field, but adds post processing time.

For example, tonight's sunset was pretty good.  I wanted the possibility of a higher resolution landscape for a larger print.  So I zoomed in a bit with my 24-105 lens and made something like a 5 wide by 4 row mosaic, all hand held and executed in less than a minute.  Further, I adjusted exposure for the bright orange clouds so I included as part of the mosaic an HDR.  I'll simply throw the images into PTGui, and done.  Example in the mosaics gallery on me web site, and note, mosaics can be done on animals too.

By adjusting technique, one can lighten weight and still produce technically superb images...just find the right light, subject and composition.

Roger

Check out this great macro image for a demo of the picture quality: 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adegsm/14225196939/

[font=Calibri","sans-serif]1 pound, Tilt screen, Zeiss 27-810 IS/VR 2.8- 5.6 zoom, 10 frames per second.[/font]
Under $200 used at BH, includes lens.  Sony DSC-HX100V.

Kim wrote:So far no one has really spoken about the sensors in terms of image quality differences from the same sensors being a variant of the processor used by each camera. I was hoping EJ or Roger would add some information on that.

Perhaps it really doesn't matter much in real world usage? And I think I read here on Naturescapes somebody said that there was no way no how to tell which camera was used to take a photograph by looking at the photograph itself. Even phone cameras can be used to take great pictures these days.

Kim wrote:
Is there any other options that have articulated screens and are light weight that will give good image quality?

 

The Panasonic Lumix cameras have been highly rated as of late. I know of one pro who uses them exclusively. As you said, you will have to make some compromises to achieve your goal, but these cameras have an articulated screen, macro capabilities and a Leica lens with a 25-400mm (or or up to 875mm depending on the model) equivalent at the long end. They focus super close, too.You know what your objectives are and the end result desired, so I would make a judgement on those factors. I'm considering going to the Panasonic for convenience sake and some of the same reasons you have stated. I know that the quality is good and I can adjust to the compromises required by the limitations of the more compact superzooms. I have used a Sony DSC-H50 for several years and can tell you that it produces excellent prints up to 13"x19". I can shoot a car a half a block away and still read the license plate when I zoom in. I think that sometimes we are expecting the ultimate quality in cameras and images and don't want to accept only fine quality with some compromise. Only you can decide your ultimate use for your images, but we all know that any camera can produce award winners. Here's a link to the Panasonic I'm considering:

http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/DMC-FZ1000

And a review:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panason ... dmc-fz1000

Some like this one even have an aperture of f2.8 across the entire zoom range:

http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/DMC-FZ200K

Of course the zoom equivalent and f stop are not the same as on a full sized sensor, but you can read up on that.

Joe

Thanks Steve and Joe. The Panasonic does look interesting and gets a great review. It is listed at $1099 here in Australia so it may be worth keeping and eye on it.

I went out yesterday with the d5100 and a macro lens and tried the live view option in manual focus and found even when zoomed in to achieve focus I did not get any sharp images that were usable, seems my eyes are past their best now too. I will keep trying though as I may improve. I used a tripod and cable release too.

My wife has just converted over to a Nikon 1 V3 with the new 70-300mm lens due to physical limitations. She hasn't really put it through its paces yet, but she's gotten some very nice bird and dragonfly shots with it in her first two runs out. From the reviews I've read, there isn't a non-DSLR camera that can match its AF accuracy. And there isn't one that can match its continuous AF at 20 fps. Her other option was the D5300 with the 55-30mm lens. Just about any other DSLR combo will weigh too much at some point.

There are, as always, limitations like not being able to use a full-sized flash, but if weight and reach are your two primary concerns, it's tough to match this camera/lens pair at less than two pounds with a 2.7X crop factor.