For the last year or so, it seems like almost every new lens release has been accompanied by sticker shock. The manufacturers are businessmen and they know when we’ve been salivating at the promise of a new wonder lens. They know we”ll be willing to (at least some of us) pay a ridiculous amount to put that slightly better lens in front of our camera.

Somewhat lost in the hundreds of Internet threads about whether this-or-that awesome lens is worth its ridiculous price, though, there are some good bargains to be had. In fact, right now there may be more excellent lens bargains available than at any time I can recall. But let’s define real bargains for a minute.

A bargain is NOT finding a $2,500 lens for $1,500. That is a scam and doesn’t happen in the real world. A bargain is finding a lens that does nearly as well as the best possible lens, or does some things every bit as well as the best possible lens, at a fraction of the cost.

In some cases, you can get a good bargain even if you limit yourself to the three-zooms-to-cover-every-boring-possible-focal-length kit. For others, getting a great bargain means leaving your comfort zone a bit; perhaps changing lenses more frequently, or correcting some distortion in post-processing. Doing this, though, especially if you are taking the first timid steps away from the ”three zooms” approach, may be the best thing that can happen to your photography.

Bargains for Nikon

Nikon is prime bargain-shopper territory this year, folks. It seems there’s a perfect storm for Nikon shooters. Nikon has released a number or really good, reasonably priced lenses. Third-party developers have added some, too. As if this wasn’t enough, Nikon is exhibiting many of the signs of a business with inventory control or projection problems — discounting things right and left. While the first two factors probably won’t change in the near future, this third one probably will, so some of the Nikon bargains may be temporary.

That being said, the recent price drops have kept a few things from being listed in my bargains. The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8, for example, would have made the list when it was $1,300 and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 was $1,900. But with the Nikon currently available at $1,660 it doesn’t make my “costs 60% of the best lens” bargain definition. I’ll also mention there aren’t any DX bargains listed largely because, while DX zooms  are (usually) less expensive than FX alternatives, there are often several to choose from at roughly the same price.

Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED

Price: $1,099

As good as the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II? Nope. Vibration control? Nope. Require cameras with built-in focus motor? Yep. But if you are using this focal length to shoot action, which a lot of people are, then the vibration control is less important because you require shorter shutter speeds. The image quality is better than third party zooms in this focal length (in the center it’s just about as good as the 70-200 VR II). If you don’t need VR, then here’s the classic bargain: 90% of the lens at less than 50% of the price.

Here’s another way to look at it: A Nikon 70-200mm VR II and Nikon D600 combo will set you back $4,394. The Nikon D800 and Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 – only $3,896. Which one do you think gives the best images?

Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8

Price: $749  

As good as the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8? Nope. Corners soft at f/2.8? Yep. Flare like nobody’s business with the sun in the field? Sure does. Not to mention it’s matched up against the best wide-angle zoom ever made in the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. But it has excellent resolution for an f/2.8 full-frame wide angle and even the corners are sharp at f/4. And you can buy something nice with the $1,200 you’d save compared to the 14-24mm f/2.8

Sigma 35mm f/1.4

Price: $899

Here’s a superb bargain example. It’s sharper than the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 G, Zeiss ZF 35mm f/1.4 or Zeiss 35mm f/2, and significantly less expensive. There seem to be some autofocus issues on the D800, though, so D800 owners may need to be happy using center point AF only. Then again, it certainly autofocuses better than the Zeiss lenses.

Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 AF-S G

Price: $459

I’m not a fan of the 60mm focal length for macro work. But here’s an exceptionally sharp lens, very small and easy to add to your bag that is really inexpensive given the recent price reductions.

Rokinon 14mm f/2.8

Price: $420

It’s manual focus, but at 14mm focus is basically ‘everything I can’t touch is usually in focus’ so that’s not critical. (Manual focus is the reason I didn’t include longer Rokinon lenses as bargains.) It has a lot of barrel distortion, but everything else at this focal length has some. Not as much, but some. But it’s amazingly sharp. Better than the Nikon 14mm f/2.8 prime (which is way dated) and 1/3rd of the price. I will note, this is held together inside with plastic, glue, and small screws. You won’t be using it for years. But the price of a new one is less than the price of a repair on a 14-24 f/2.8.

Nikon f/1.8 G Primes

Nikon 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G - $370 

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G - $217

Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-S G - $220

The Trinity of Nikon f/1.8 G primes. All are as sharp as their far more expensive f/1.4 big brothers. All three together cost about $800, half of what a Nikon 35mm f/1.4 G costs. Want to shoot world-class Nikon for under $3,000? Get a D7100 and these 3 primes and you’re set. That’s actually a bit less than, say, a Fuji X-Pro1 and 3 prime lenses.

While it didn’t quite make my ultimate bargain list, the Nikon 28mm f/1.8 G at $600 is excellent, too. If you shoot full-frame you can still get 3 superb f/1.8 primes for $1,100. That’s less than the cost of the 24-70 f/2.8 zoom and each has clearly better IQ than the zoom.

Bargains for Canon

Canon seems to have better inventory control lately, making their markdowns a bit less dramatic. Or perhaps Canon shooters have been using their disposable income on lenses instead of cameras, keeping the demand high. There are still some good bargains to be had in the Canon world, though.

Canon 70-200mm f/4L

 Price: $674

You can focus on the lack of image stabilization and the f/4 aperture rather than f/2.8. But it’s sharper than the f/4 IS version and about half the price. This is one of the ‘starter’ L quality lenses I recommend to everyone. You give up some compromises for this bargain, but in decent light it can create images as good as anything in this focal range.

Tie: Tokina AT-X 16-28 f/2.8 & Canon 17-40 f/4

Price: $749 & $699, respectively

Either is right around half the price of a Canon 16-35 f/2.8L lens. The 17-40 gives up a stop for that money, but is probably a bit sharper than the 16-35 and certainly is more flare resistant. It’s also drop-dead reliable; we rarely see one break. The Tokina is just as sharp and gives you f/2.8, but you won’t be putting any filters in front of it, and it flares if the sun is anywhere in the image. Certainly, though, either provides 80% of the capability for half the money, which is my definition of a good buy.

Sigma 35mm f/1.4

Price: $899

Not quite as great a bargain for Canon shooters as for Nikon shooters since the Canon 35mm f/1.4 is a bit cheaper than the Nikon. But the Sigma is still a sharper lens for about 70% of the price.

Rokinon 14mm f/2.8

Price: $379

This one (or these three if you want to go by different brand badges) is an even better bargain for Canon shooters than for Nikon – it’s cheaper in Canon mount and the Canon 14mm f/2.8 is nearly $2,000 – higher than the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 zoom. If you can live with the distortion it’s definitely the cheapest way to go really wide.

Canon 40mm f/2.8 Pancake

Price: $149

It’s so small and inexpensive I use it as my lens cap. It gives excellent image quality, particularly in the center. If you prefer wider aperture you might consider the slightly less expensive 50mm f/1.8, but the 40mm is quicker to focus, doesn’t have that annoying buzzing motor, and is half the size.

Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro

Price: $499

It’s not quite as good as the Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS as far as image quality, but it’s close. Personally, this is one where I’d pay the difference because I really need the IS, but many people do not. For them, this original version is barely more than half the price and an excellent lens. I doubt it will remain available for a lot longer, though.

Canon 85mm f/1.8

Price: $359

Another excellent prime lens that can be had for a tiny fraction of what the Canon 85 f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses cost. If you can give up the half stop of light and a bit of bokeh creaminess, you can save a lot of money and space in your bag with this one.

Canon 200mm f/2.8L Mk II

Price: $759

It’s sharper and a lot smaller than a 70-200 f/2.8 lens at half the price. I mention this one because there are a lot of sports shooters who could tape their 70-200mm lens at 200mm – every shot is taken there. This lens makes a lot of sense for them.

Bargains for Micro 4/3

There’s a bit less room for bargain hunting in m4/3, which isn’t surprising given fewer lenses and manufacturers. There’s a big group of top-level primes and zooms for around $1,000, another group at $600-$800, and then a lot of zooms at around $500. There are a couple of lenses that meet my ’60% of the price’ bargain criteria, though.

Sigma 30mm EX DN f/2.8

Price: $149

Superb image quality and a rock-bottom price make this a must buy. It’s not a true wide-aperture prime, being f/2.8, but it’s sharp wide open.

Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX DN

Price: $199

As above, and while it’s not quite as inexpensive, it’s still a bargain.

There are some other lenses, like the Panasonic pancakes and Olympus 45mm f/1.8 that have good prices, although I’m not sure they’re screaming bargains.

Bargains for NEX

Looking for high-quality, low-price NEX lenses is a fairly quick task, but right now there’s one bargain that may top anything else for any other system.

Sigma 30mm f/2.8 & 19mm f/2.8

Price: $199, total

Basically, unless you already have both of these, buy the package. Even if you have one, buy the package and sell the other one.

That’s Probably Not All

If you think I missed a bargain or two, feel free to add a comment. But remember the criteria aren’t just cheap lenses; it’s excellent lenses at a fraction of the price of similar quality lenses.

Roger Cicala

Lensrentals.com

March, 2013

Let’s Begin With: Don’t Do What I Did

Sometimes the main purpose of my life is simply to serve as a warning to others. By now it should be apparent that I made some major mistakes.

Foremost was that I overreacted. Following my lifelong philosophy of ‘Anything worth doing is worth doing to excess’ I decided to exit Micro 4/3 when I found it didn’t fit all of my needs. Despite the fact that I said, very clearly, when starting this that I knew there was no perfect camera system, even for one individual. The grass will always be greener in some area on the other side of the fence.

In retrospect, it would have made more sense to buy a new camera and lens to fill my major need at 400mm and then decide if I wanted to move entirely. I used a shotgun to kill the fly that was irritating me.

Several people have suggested 400mm options for micro 4/3, though, and I do want to mention that so far there hasn’t been a suggestion I haven’t tried. They just didn’t work for me, But in retrospect, at this point I should be buying a body and couple of lenses, and not have gotten rid of all my Micro 4/3 stuff. Then I could have decided if I wanted to completely migrate or continue with both systems.

Show Me the Money

I spent some time looking at lens combinations I would likely buy, to reevaluate expenses. Camera, macro lens, at least one fast prime, standard zoom, at least one wide aperture prime, a wide-angle zoom, and 400mm equivalent lens were absolute necessities. I had decided to keep my system under $9,000 so a little modification of my initial lists was in order.

The first modification knocked roughly $1,500 from my Canon and Nikon purchase prices. I had initially planned on the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 because it’s the world’s best wide zoom and the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 as the closest match. During my evaluation time I had decided I preferred the Canon 14mm f/2.8 to the 16-35mm f/2.8 because it was sharper and because when looking at what I actually shoot it became obvious I use my wide zooms at the widest end almost all of the time.

After realizing I rarely shoot architecture this wide I decided I’d save $1,500 either way and pick up a RokiBowYang 14mm f/2.8 lens. It has more barrel distortion (5.2%) compared to the Nikon (3.9% at 14mm) and the Canon (1.7%) but it has resolution every bit as good as the brand-name lenses. I don’t mind manually focusing at this wide angle (truth is I usually set this kind of lens at it’s hyperfocal distance and then shoot away). I know, because I’ve taken them apart, that they aren’t going to hold up well, and I know they are about impossible to get repaired. But buying a replacement RokiBowYang costs less than a standard repair on a Nikon 14-24mm, so i almost consider it a disposable lens. This choice, very obviously, might not work for you.

The second modification had to do with camera bodies. On the Canon side I truly waffled about whether I preferred the 5D Mk III’s extra pixels and better autofocus or the 6D’s built in Wi-Fi, which I really found useful. So I saved $1,100 and went with the 6D. The Nikon decision was tougher. I could save the same $1,100 choosing a D600 instead of a D800. For me, the major attraction, even though I don’t absolutely need it, was the big megapixel images. It gives me some flexibility in cropping and even lens selection. So on the Nikon side I decided I’d pay the difference.

Finally, I decided to leave off a 70-200 f/2.8 lens. I don’t shoot action sports, and would be fine with the f/4 versions for either Canon or Nikon. The 70-200s tend to be travel / vacation lenses for me, and for right now I’ll just rent one for vacation. I may add one in a few months, but might rather prefer 85mm and 135mm primes instead.

When the dust had settled, it was pretty easy to meet my $9,000 budget with any system and I can probably save a few hundred off of the list prices below with some smart shopping.

Nikon D800e	$3,097	Canon 6D	$2,099	Pentax K5 IIs	$1,197
Nikon 300mm f/4 with 1.4x TC	$1,879	Canon 400mm f/5.6	$1,339	Pentax 300mm f/4	$1,370
Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR Micro	$899	Canon 100mm f/2.8 IS L	$1,049	Pentax 100mm f/2.8 Macro	$847
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC	$1,299	Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk II	$2,149	Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8	$1,470
Rokinon 14mm f/2.8	$399	Rokinon 14mm f/2.8	$399	Sigma 10-20 f/3.5	$599
Sigma 35mm f/1.4	$899	Sigma 35mm f/1.4	$899	Pentax 31mm f/1.8	$990
TOTAL	$8.472	TOTAL	$7,934	TOTAL	$6,473

Other Things I Considered

Service and Support

I mentioned in the first post that I’m a fanatic about customer service and repairs. That’s a big edge to Canon USA compare to Nikon USA right now (it’s different in different countries), and right now is when I’m making my decision. Fanboys can go off as much as they want, but I handled several thousand repairs last year. Nikon takes, on average, three times as long at double the cost.  (Lensrentals insider joke: What do you call a D800 with a scratched sensor? Parts. Because at $1,800 for a sensor replacement . . . )

I haven’t had many Pentax repairs so I looked into their service and got good news and bad. The good was a really nice customer support system with live chat and quick, knowledgeable phone support. The bad news was when I asked how long repair turnaround time would be the answer was 20 to 30 days. So I ranked them between Canon and Nikon.

My Personal Rant

This may not bother you at all, but it does me, at least a bit. If I buy Nikon right now, I’m in effect saying it’s fine that you stopped selling parts, made most of the independent shops stop working on Nikon, upped your repair prices, slowed your repair service, and lowered quality control. You were right to do so, because here’s my money.

I say one part of me because there’s another part that shrugs and says ‘if it’s the best equipment, it’s the best equipment’. So myself and I had a long talk and reached a compromise. When Nikon clearly has the best equipment (D800e, for example) or best value (28mm f/1.8) then I’ll buy Nikon. But when things are close and there is an alternative, I’ll buy non-Nikon. The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC and Rokinon 14mm lens choices made me feel better. I might also go with a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 OS macro instead of the 105 VR Micro. On the other hand, I really did prefer the Nikon 300 f/4 and 1.4x to the Sigma 50-500 OS zoom.

Buying Used Equipment

I don’t hesitate to buy used equipment if the price is right. There’s lots of used Canon gear out there, but often the prices aren’t that great. Nikon and Pentax are a bit less available, but often at more attractive prices. However, the repair part plays into this too. If I get a great deal on a Nikon lens but then pay $500-$800 for a repair (typical cost for a 24-70 f/2.8 or 14-24mm f/2.8 rebuild) I’ve probably paid more than I would have for a new lens. The end result is I would be more likely to buy used Canon lenses and might save a few bucks. Like repairs, though, this wasn’t a major part of my decision, but something I considered a bit.

Cool Things

I’ve already mentioned the 6D’s Wi Fi hit my cooness button pretty hard. So does Nikon’s gazzillion megapixels. So did the Pentax menus and the ability to map out hot or dead pixels from the comfort of my recliner. Of course, it would be even worse if I had the opportunity to buy a Pentax K5 II in one of the 100 horrible color combinations the Q cameras come in. What a great anti-theft device. OK, that might be just a bit too cool for me.

If the coolness thing affected me, it was in the 6D versus 5D Mk III decision, I think. I believe I overcame it elsewhere.

Lens Selection

I mentioned earlier there were lenses I would buy to keep in my kit, but there were other lenses I’d ‘rent’ too, on occasion. Pentax falls a bit behind here for things like tilt-shifts, supertelephotos, and to some degree even wide-aperture primes (there are lots and lots of them, but many have slow AF, buzzy little motors, and other leftovers from older designs). You can get most things you want, but there isn’t an all-you-can-shoot buffet like there the other two have.

I found this an interesting contrast from mirrorless systems where the I consider Pentax to have the strongest lens selection. It’s the exact same set of Pentax lenses, which gives a nice perspective about the gap between mirrorless and SLR lens selection. Yeah, I’m probably still trying to make myself feel better for my all-or-none attitude when I started this.

There are a couple of lenses on the Canon side that I will definitely use a few times a year like the MP-E 65mm and the 17mm TS-E that just aren’t available in Nikon or Pentax. I also use a 500m f/4 or 300mm f/2.8 a couple of times a year, but they’re available for both Canon and Nikon. Ditto Zeiss lenses, which I do use fairly often. There is a 560mm f/5.6 available for Pentax but it’s not available for occasional rental.

The Bottom Line

It should be pretty obvious that I decided against going with the Pentax system. It met all of my needs, there were things I really liked about it, but in the end the flexibility of the other two systems really attracted me. It was close, though, and if I had decided to just add an SLR with 400mm equivalent lens to a mirrorless system, I might well have gone with the K-5 IIs and 300 f/4.

Despite the better image quality of the Nikon system, I decided to go with the Canon. I waffled back and forth for days on this decision. In the end the biggest reasons were minor things that would not apply to many of you: availability of used equipment at lower risk, availability of a few specialty lenses that appeal to me, and a strong preference for the Canon 100mm Macro’s IS system. I have to admit the 6D’s built-in Wi Fi pushed my buttons, too. It’s not just a toy, I really do use it quite a bit. I’m actually in pictures now instead of just taking them.

The system I got was not the best for image quality. Heck, I didn’t even get the best Canon camera from an image quality standpoint. This did surprise me a bit because I spend all day looking at minute differences in image quality. I think I got the best system for me — a hobbyist who likes to shoot some macro and hand-held telephoto.

If I shot differently, I would have made a different choice. You do shoot differently and will certainly make different choices.

Uwe Steinmueller, who runs the Digital Outback Photo blog has been kind enough to look at the same issue from a photographer’s (rather than a gearhead) point of view and has written a nice counterpoint article.  It’s definitely worth a read (and the photographs certainly worth a look).

I’d love to say I’ll not have any buyer’s remorse, but I probably will. There are several D800 shooters working here that will show me images to make certain I do every chance they get. But overall I’m already happy with what I decided to get.

In retrospect, though, if I’d kept my Micro 4/3 system I probably would have bought the 6D, 400mm lens and 100mm macro, used both systems for a while, and then decided if I wanted to sell the Micro 4/3 system and add lenses. That would have been the more practical thing to do.

This long series is, at last, mercifully over. I appreciate the comments of those who enjoyed it and the patience of those who didn’t. The simple reality is writing about it helped me organize my thoughts and my processes, and in this case I think helped me make a more informed decision.

Roger Cicala

Lensrentals.com

Fevruary 2013

1) Gotten a quick idea about the relative importance of lens versus sensor resolution

2) Screened for camera systems that might meet my needs

3) Investigated the rough cost of candidate systems

After some preliminary screening I had decided to investigate several full-frame and several APS-C sensor cameras:

• Nikon D800e
• Canon 5D Mk III
• Sony A99
• Nikon D5200
• Sony A77
• Pentax K5 IIs

I’ve spent about 3 weeks now doing the things that are most important (other than counting the money hit)  – actually taking pictures with the various cameras.

I’ve also spent a lot of time reading reviews, just like everyone else would. Not to mention I took to heart some of the very good comments made in the previous posts (there are really good, non-Fanboy suggestions that are worth your while to look at).

In case you haven’t realized it, I’m not reviewing these cameras and making recommendations, I’m just sharing how I figure out the best system for me and how I went about deciding what to buy. There won’t be lots of technical information, pretty pictures, or even numerical system ratings in this post.

Ergonomic Factors

Let’s face it, it doesn’t matter how great the pictures are, if you don’t find the camera comfortable to use, you probably won’t be using it very long.

Fitting My Hands

The first thing I did was spend a day with each camera and a standard-range zoom, just to get a feel for them. Why putting a camera in my hands is vitally important became quickly apparent. The Nikon D5200 just doesn’t fit my hands well. This surprised me a bit, since I’d been shooting an Olympus OM-D with grip for a while, and the D5200 is actually larger than that camera. I used it for a day, thinking I would adjust, but I didn’t.

All of the other cameras on the list fit me comfortably and within an hour or two I was able to find the commonly needed buttons and wheels by feel.

Other Ergonomic Factors

I’ve shot so long with Canon and Nikon cameras that any comments I have on their layout are minor. While I’d shot a few times with the Alpha and Pentax systems, my experience with each has been fairly limited. Exploring features and menus was first order of the day for both systems.

One thing that I didn’t like was the Sony joystick button. Compared to many other cameras I’ve shot with, the Sony button didn’t have a lot of tactile feedback and I found myself having trouble selecting menus and other things with the joystick. I’ve talked to Alpha shooters who love the joystick so this probably has to do with my overly large and clumsy hands – but it didn’t work well for me.

I had heard and read complaints about the Sony menu system. Perhaps because I have shot with NEX cameras a lot, which are similar, I didn’t struggle with the menus, although I can’t say I find them intuitive.

The Pentax system reaffirmed what I’d already thought during limited use. The menus and features must have been designed by photographers, not programmers, and they were completely intuitive for me. There were little things with the Pentax system that I absolutely loved, like the ability to map out hot or dead pixels from the menu. There are some mirrorless systems that let you do that, too, and I find it a bit insulting that the other SLRs require a trip to the factory for that, especially since hot pixels are something likely to occur outside of the warranty period.

Everyday Use

Autofocus

A lot of people stress a camera’s autofocus system a lot more than I do. I didn’t find anything with the AF system of any of these cameras that made me want to cast it aside, but I wasn’t using Servo mode for action shots, either. For a lot of you who do that kind of thing, the AF system would have been a more important part of their choice.

I felt the 5D Mk III was the most accurate in low light, but there wasn’t a huge difference. The Nikon and new SLT Sony bodies were on a par for me. They may not be quite as good as the Canon 5D Mk III in low light, or maybe they were. All were perfectly fine for my needs.

I had heard some questions about the Pentax AF system, particularly in tungsten light, but the K-5 II bodies were supposed to be better. I stressed it in single-shot AF and poor lighting and found it was pretty accurate. AF speed varied a lot depending upon which lenses I was using, and was perhaps a bit slower than the others. Still what I would consider acceptable, though, no question.

Viewfinder and Live View

I was interested in taking a good look at the Sony EVFs and found they were quite nice and I really enjoyed some of the heads-up display features. The horizon level features are particularly well done and I’ve gotten quite attached to those using mirrorless systems as much as I have. (Again, I’m not doing a lot of rapid-fire shooting of fast moving subjects. The shortcomings of even a great EVF might be more important to you.)

I also use the LCD for live view focusing quite often. The D800′s LCD interpolation artifacts during magnifion are distracting somtimes but didn’t prevent me from getting accurate manual focus shots very often. I really liked the articulated LCDs on the Sony cameras during live-view focusing  and I’ve always loved the focus peaking options. My eyesight isn’t what it once was and that allows me to manually focus even through the viewfinder. I liked the Sony’s focus-range feature, too, and I’d use that fairly frequently, I think.

I know there are some specification differences between the LCDs, but there was nothing I could really notice just using them. They were all excellent, but none of them are going to work for me in bright summer sunlight.

400mm Equivalent Images

As I’d written earlier, one of the biggest motivators for me making this choice was being unhappy with the telephoto images I was able to get from a Micro 4/3rds system, so a big part of my comparison was image quality of a 16″ x 20″ telephoto print.

I did some fairly appropriate and fairly simple tests using the hand-holdable lenses I would be interested in. I shot still subjects at 100 yards distance, resized the resulting image to print at 16″ x 20″, cropped the centers, and compared. I looked at 100% crops to see exactly how much detail was possibly visible, too. I’m sure there are 692 arguments people will make about the validity of this, but hey, they’re my prints and it reproduces what I want to do.

Within each system I experimented with lenses a bit to see what I thought gave me the best images and ended up with this:

• Nikon: 300mm f/4 with a 1.4X teleconverter (better than the Sigma 50-500 OS, but it was close)
• Canon: 400mm f/5.6 (a tiny bit better than the 100-400, but I’d probably buy the 100-400 for the IS and zoom)
• Pentax: 300mm f/4 (450mm equivalent, but hey, give the little guy a break, OK?)
• Sony: Sigma 50-500 OS (better than the Sony 70-400, and yes I tried a couple of copies of the 70-400)
• Olympus: Panasonic 100-300, but I also tried the Olympus 75-300 and really couldn’t tell a difference

For the Olympus zooms I even shot at 200mm, 250mm and 300mm, to see how much the increased magnification might translate into resolved detail, even realizing I wouldn’t be able to zoom that far on most of what I shoot.
I’m not going to present you a review, I’m not a reviewer. But after looking at all the images myself and then asking 6 photographers who work here to look at them without knowing which image was which, some things were very apparent (all 7 people had the same conclusion).

The D800, when pixel peeping, resolved more detail than anything else and it wasn’t even close. Resized to this print size (the D800 is actually downrezzing here) the difference became less apparent, but still 7 of 7 picked it as the sharpest image.

The Canon system was considered very close in a 16″ x 20″ print, but when pixel-peeping on a monitor the difference was more apparent (so it probably would be more apparent in a larger print, too).

The micro 4/3 images, even taken at 300mm (600mm equivalent) didn’t resolve as much detail as the other systems. This is simply about the lenses. One interesting point was that when I zoomed either lens from 250-300mm I got a larger image, but really didn’t resolve any more detail. In other words, I could have done that in Photoshop.

The Sony A99 with 70-400 at 400 was weaker than the other SLR systems. The A77, using the 70-400 at just under 300mm resolved better, although it still wasn’t as strong as the others. I repeated the tests with the Sigma 50-500 OS at the same focal lengths and it was better, so again this seems to be about the lens.

The Pentax, despite only being 16 megapixels, surprised me positively. It didn’t quite resolve as well as the Canon, but was very close. I think the excellent 300mm lens and no AA filter gave it a higher resolution than I expected. I will mention that I tried, and ruled out, the 60-250mm f/4 lens, which I thought would be most useful. It wasn’t nearly as sharp as the 300mm prime.

So my conclusions were that moving to a new system would definitely be worthwhile for my 400mm shots. The D800 provided the best resolution, the Canon and Pentax systems were both acceptable, but the Sony systems lagged a bit. I know there are new lenses on the way for the Sony system, but as I mentioned earlier, I’m not considering anything that’s not available now.

Macro Shooting

Macro is another area of importance. I found the Canon 100 f/2.8 IS L macro’s image stabilization really did make a bit of a difference for me here, probably because it also stabilizes angular shake. I’m the first to admit I use it as a crutch and I should be setting up my tripod and macro rails more often . . . but hey, I like a crutch as much as the next guy.

The Nikon D800e with the 105 f/2.8 VR did show a bit more detail than the Canon did, but I couldn’t cheat my handholding exposure quite as much with it.  The Pentax didn’t quite resolve as well as the others, but it was certainly acceptable, as was the OM-D system I’d been shooting with.

Dynamic Range and ISO

I had mentioned earlier that ISO 1600 performance was really important to me and ISO 3200 would be useful, but I rarely go past that. Shooting with these cameras it quickly became apparent than none of them particularly limited me at ISO 1600. I would be willing to print jpgs from the camera with all of them. Similarly, there was some noise that I’d want to work on in post, generally, at ISO 3200 but all were usable.

While there were on paper dynamic range differences, at my usual ISO (200 to 400) none of the cameras limited me greatly and I could rescue shadows and highlights reasonably with all of them. The Canon had the known problems with pulling out shadows, but I could pull back highlights beautifully.

From everything I’ve read it seems D800e files allow a bit more rescue leeway than the other cameras, and the Canon does have a problem pulling out shadows sometimes. But in what I shot, using my usual ‘Zeiss, the jet-black dog’ dynamic range tests, I’d be happy with any of the cameras.

The Wide End

There were no suprises here. Then D800 with the 14-24 f/2.8 AF-S was simply better than any other zoom combination. With prime lenses like the 14mm f/2.8 or 17mm TS-E, the Canon could hold it’s own against the Nikon, but with the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 the difference was quickly apparent.

The Sony 16-35 f/2.8 lens was much like the Canon 16-35 f/2.8. OK, but clearly not competitive with the Nikon system. If I were to go with the Sony system, I’d really consider a RokiBowYang 14mm f/2.8 lens. It’s sharper and wider than the zoom, way less expensive, and at 14mm manual focusing wouldn’t really be an issue, especially with Sony’s peaking filters. For that matter, I might well consider it an option with the other systems, too.

I didn’t have access to a Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 in Pentax mount so I didn’t do a hand’s on with this system and ultra-wides. The 15mm f/4 was quite nice, but I’d want something wider.

Where I Stand Now

Nikon D800e system: Meets or exceeds all of my needs.

Canon full-frame system (I’m still doing the 5D Mk III vs 6D tap dance): Meets all of my needs.

Pentax K5 IIs system: Meets my needs, but not quite as easily as the first two.

Sony Alpha system: While I love some features, and lust after the 135mm f/1.8 lens, it’s a bit weaker at 400mm which is a major motivating factor for me.

At this point I’m leaning towards either the Canon or Nikon full-frame systems, although I’m still considering the Pentax. I like some features of the Alpha system, and some of the lenses are awesome, but for what I wanted most to do, it wasn’t quite as good as the others.

I’m going to do some system exploration, as in what lenses I’d actually buy with each system (the initial cost lists were simply trying to put things in perspective from the m4/3 system). I’m also going to consider one of the earlier suggestions about keeping my Micro 4/3rds system and simply buying a dedicated camera – telephoto lens combination. I’ll make my final decision in a few days, but there were and are plenty of options that will fill my needs perfectly.

I think the takeaway point is that the process I used made me look at a system (Pentax) that I hadn’t really considered on the front end. The process also ruled out (for me) some cameras that I thought would be good choices on the front end. My goal with every major purchase is to avoid buyer’s remorse and I think this has helped me do that.

I’ll put a brief post up in a couple of days with my final choices. Uwe Steinmueller of The Digital Outback Photo has volunteered to write a counterpoint post, about what he would choose for his own system to publish at the same time. I think this will be a nice contrast and perspective: one gearhead hobby photographer and a full-time working professional photographer doing a similar exercise. We’ll publish them simultaneously on Friday.

Roger Cicala

Lensrentals.com

Lensrentals, 2013

In my last post I made a preliminary list of systems I was going to consider. Some people are a little surprised I’m considering crop sensor cameras. I’m surprised that they’re surprised. I’ve shot with a micro 4/3 system for months and it certainly met 80% of my needs, so an APS-C based camera may be just fine. Or I may decide that I need to have a full-frame camera. I’ve generally shot full frame for the last several years.

But did I mention this is coming out of my own pocket? And that I’m kind of cheap? It’s been several years since I’ve actually priced systems but the last time I checked APS-C was a lot cheaper. I want to look at just how many of my hard earned it requires to join the Big Boy Full-Frame Camera Owner’s Club. I may just hang out with the kids.

I also want an idea, before I start comparing systems, about the cost difference between the different systems. I know exactly what the cameras sell for, but that doesn’t necessarily reflect the cost of buying into a system. (Oh, and for those of you who think I have these numbers floating around in my head, I haven’t done Lensrentals’ purchasing for almost two years. I’m way out of the loop.)

My Olympus OM-D System’s Cost

I’ve most recently been shooting with an Olympus OM-D system that I bought over several months. Purchasing piecemeal tends to confuse me about what I’ve actually invested in the system, so I tallied up my total costs.

Component	Cost
Olympus OM-D E-M5	$1,049
Olympus HLD-6 Grip	$249
Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 OIS	$1,498
Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 OIS	$1,144
Panasonic 7-14mm f/4	$949
Olympus 75mm f/1.8	$949
Olympus 60mm f/2.8 Macro	$499
Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6 OIS	$499
TOTAL	$6,836

I have to admit I was a bit taken aback. Nearly $7,000 in my micro 4/3 system. I’m glad I took the time to tally this up. I truly hadn’t realized how much I had invested in it.

This probably surprised me more than anything I had looked at so far. It may well serve as a good example for those who are thinking of changing systems – it’s an expensive proposition (By the way – whoever recently bought a nice Olympus 75mm f/1.8 from Lensrentals, you got a great deal. That was my personal lens).

I know what you’re thinking, but no, my wife would rather shove bamboo shoots under her fingernails than read my blog, so my secret is safe with you. Nothing like hiding in plain sight. The best part is if it ever does come to her attention, I’ll be able to say, “But, honey, I even wrote about it!! What do you mean you had no idea??” Once again I serve as a role model for husbands everywhere.

This is probably as good a place as any to mention why I’m leaving the Olympus behind. It’s been a good camera system for me. One of the major reasons for getting it, though, was my desire for a small system. To maximize the image quality I ended up with the very best lenses, most of which aren’t that tiny. I’ve recently picked up a Sony RX-100 and that quickly became a go-everywhere, truly pocketable camera for when I’m just shooting snapshots for online jpgs. If anyone wants a blog post about the best point-and-shoot camera, here it is: get the RX-100.

In the end, my shooting style and demand for the best lenses made it a bit less portable than I’d hoped for, the RX-100 eased my need for a small camera system, and I found that I was shooting SLRs more and the Olympus less. When I moved out to the country the Micro 4/3 telephoto weakness became more irritating to me and pushed me over the edge.

Full Frame Costs

Just to get a rough idea, I’m going to price the body and these lenses: 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 100 or 150mm Macro, wide-angle f/2.8 zoom, and the best quality telezoom. I also want a moderately wide-angle, wide-aperture prime lens. I’d probably go with the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens for any of the three full-frame bodies so my actual cost will be $899 more than the table shows. Finally, I want a shoe-mount flash. I’ll use the middle grade flash because that’s what I use in real life.

No comparison like this is going to be perfectly fair, and when I finally decide on a system I’ll make some changes, but this should give me a rough idea about system cost. Obviously these are February 2013 prices. If you stumble on this article in 6 months they’ll probably be quite different. Of course, these are current list prices, too, and if you shop carefully you could certainly save a couple of hundred bucks.

Nikon	Nikon	Canon	Canon	Sony	Sony
Nikon D800E	$3,097	Canon 5D Mk III	$3,149	Sony A99	$2,798
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S	$1,887	Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II	$2,199	Sony-Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8	$1,898
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II	$2,397	Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II	$2,299	Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G	$1,998
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S	$1,997	Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II	$1,489	Sony-Zeiss 16-35mm f/2.8	$1,898
Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro	$899	Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro	$899	Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro	$1,099
Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3	$1,509	Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS	$1,489	Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G	$1,898
Nikon SB-700	$327	Canon 430EX II	$279	Sony HVL-F43AM	$348
TOTAL	$12,113		$11,803		$11,937

Two notes on the table above: I substituted the Sigma 50-500mm OS for the Nikon system because it’s both a better lens optically and a bit less expensive than the Nikon 80-400. I substituted the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 OS for the Sony 100mm f/2.8 macro, which I consider a weak lens. That added $300 to the Sony system.

So what did I learn? That I’m not going to choose my full-frame system on price point, obviously. Whichever full-frame system I choose will run just under $13,000 (including the 35mm prime). I can probably save enough with careful shopping to make it $12,000. But there’s not going to be a significant price savings with one system over the other.

One other point — people are going to ask why I don’t substitute the Canon 6D or Nikon D600 and save nearly $1,000. Well, $2,000 versus $3,000 for a camera seems like a big difference, but $13,000 versus $12,000 has me in ‘might as well get the best’ mode. Still, I may well consider doing that later, although I’d be more likely to substitute the Canon 6D than the Nikon D600.

This point was one I explored a bit in the first article in this group. For the Nikon, at least, the increased resolution of the D800 may actually let me save a bit of money on lenses. For example, the D800 and Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC will certainly out-resolve the D600 with the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. I’m not saying I’d do that, but that $600 difference alone could largely offset the difference in camera costs.

The difference in resolution between the two Canon cameras is smaller. With that system the trade off would be better AF versus cooler features (I have a man-crush on the 6D’s WiFi setup). I’m more likely to make that switch if I go with Canon, but at the moment I’m leaning towards the 5D Mk III.

Crop Sensor Costs

OK, so how much will I save with if I go with an APS-C camera? I did the same exercise with my three APS-C camera choices. There’s a more variation here but I’ll try to keep the systems roughly equivalent. I want to point out, though, that these lens lists are just for comparison purposes. As I get into each system more I’ll certainly make some lens changes.

Nikon	Nikon	Pentax	Pentax	Sony	Sony
Nikon D5200	$897	Pentax K-5 IIs	$1,197	Sony A77	$1,098
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S	$1,887	Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8	$1,497	Sony-Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8	$1,898
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II	$2,397	Pentax 50-135mm f/2.8	$1,597	Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G	$1,988
Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5	$599	Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5	$599	Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5	$599
Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro	$899	Pentax 100mm f/2.8 Macro	$847	Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro	$769
Nikon 300mm f/4	$1,379	Pentax 300mm f/4	$1,397	Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 OS	$1,509
Nikon SB-700	$327	Pentax AF-360 FGZ	$239	Sony HVL-F43AM	$348
TOTAL	$8,385	TOTAL	$7,373	TOTAL	$8,209

A couple of points need explaining for this comparison. First, I’m listing the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 lens for all 3 systems because it’s a very good lens, gets me as wide as I want to be, and lists at a reasonable price. I might consider any of the many other ultra-wide choices for a specific system, but for now I’ll take f/3.5.

Second, I put the Nikon and Sony 24-70 f/2.8 lenses as my standard zoom rather than their APS-C equivalents. I’ve shot enough with the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX and Sony 16-50mm f/2.8 to know I prefer the full-frame lenses in their place and would pay the difference. The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC might be an alternative. In theory a crop-sensor lens will provide a better value since it is designed and manufactured with a smaller image circle. My experience is that they almost always cost less, but are not always the better value.

It’s probably not quite fair to put the Pentax 50-135mm f/2.8 against the Sony and Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 lenses either, but that’s the option I have for an f/2.8 telezoom. There is a long gap in my Pentax system between that 135 and the 300mm f/4 lens I have for a telephoto. If I put the 200 f/2.8 in that gap, I add $1,100 to the Pentax system cost. I considered the Pentax 60-250mm f/4 as an alternative but I’d prefer f/2.8 and the 60-250mm didn’t quite have the image quality of some of the other lenses — good, not great.

This brings me to a point I want to reemphasize; an area where I probably think differently than most of you. The lesser camera needs the better lens. This is the opposite of what most people actually buy.

I consider that a higher camera resolution makes every lens resolve better. (I wasn’t sure how much, which is why I did the 24-70 f/2.8 system comparison earlier.) But it’s something I had already discovered when I moved from full-frame SLRs to the Olympus OM-D. I was happy with the images only when I had a very good lens on the OM-D.

At any rate, if I decide on any of the 3 APS-C systems, I’ll be getting some different lenses than the ones listed in the tables above. This was just to provide me with  a rough idea about system cost.

The takeaway message is that if I go crop-sensor, given the lenses I prefer, the cost will be about 2/3 of what a full-frame will cost me. To be honest, I had expected a bit bigger differential.

What’s Next?

I was surprised at how much I’d spent on my micro 4/3 system. Then I was surprised to find how much I would spend for a new full-frame system. Finally, I was surprised to find going with an APS-C system wasn’t going to save me quite as much as I’d hoped. There were no good surprises today. In fact, I spent a few minutes thinking that my cell phone takes pretty nice pictures. Maybe I need a new hobby.

I’m already well involved in the next steps. I’ve already spent a couple of weeks shooting first with the Pentax K-5 IIs system, because I was the least familiar with that system and needed time to check out the lenses that were available to me. And some lenses that were not available to me. (For those of you wondering why the Pentax 300mm f/4 lens suddenly showed up for rent, well, that was because my Pentax evaluation required it for research purposes. If you haven’t tried it, do. It’s quite excellent.)

While I’m familiar with Sony lenses I haven’t shot nearly as much with the A99 and A77 as I have previous Alpha cameras, so I’m wallowing in those currently.

I’ll let you know what I think in a week or so.

Addendum: I might as well let me secret out now: one of the reasons I began this series of posts was that I knew I’d get some really good input from readers. If you haven’t read the comments from the previous post, I suggest them highly. There are some really good thoughts, several of which are already influencing my thinking, with absolutely no strident fanboy posts.

Roger Cicala

Lensrentals.com

February, 2013

My rule of thumb has always been if I need something 2 or 3 times a year, I’ll rent it, but if I need it more frequently than that I should buy it. Over the last few months I’ve found myself shooting with something different than my current system (Olympus OM-D E-M5 based) at least once or twice a month. It seemed time to investigate my options.

The purpose of this post is NOT to convince you that my choices are right for you. What I need and want in a system isn’t going to be what you need and want. The process I use to reach the decision may be interesting to some of you – I certainly get a half dozen emails a week asking how to choose a system. For most of you, though, who already are locked into a system, these couple of articles will not be very interesting. I apologize and we’ll return to our regularly scheduled blogging in a week or so.

Meet the Purchaser

As I wrote once upon a time in The Rashomon Effect, every one of us is going to have slightly different priorities and therefore make slightly different decisions. To make this useful to you, I’ll have to let you know a bit about me so that you can note where your priorities are different. If your photographic priorities and opportunities are far different from mine, my thoughts about selection will be of zero benefit to you. If what you need is somewhat similar to me, you might find my thoughts to be of some benefit.

I’m looking for serious hobbyist level equipment that will handle most of my needs. I’ll ‘rent’ for specific needs every so often.

I shoot occasionally with everything – that’s my job after all. That being said, I’m most experienced with Canon, Nikon, and Micro 4/3. But I think I’m fairly brand agnostic. I don’t think there’s any clearly best system, at least not right now — some have better cameras, others certain great lenses, and some have better service.

My photography skill level is moderate to good, definitely nowhere near great (If it was great I’d shooting bikini models on Ferrari’s nickel or on the sidelines at the Superbowl instead of writing this).

If I was a better photographer I could probably get by with lesser equipment. Since I am what I am, things that let me rescue borderline images, like image stabilization, extra megapixels, and a strong dynamic range may be more important to me than to you.

I have a good budget, but price is very important to me. I’m cheap. Plus within 6 months my wife will ‘mention’ whatever I spend on this system in comparison to a new piece of furniture or some home improvement. I’ll pay the man for something that’s clearly better, but if I can get 90% of the benefit for 60% of the price, I’ll head that way every time (A concept that my wife doesn’t quite understand).

I’m also a reliability and customer service fanatic, and I expect to be treated like the good customer I am. I consider reliability and service at the top of my list when I buy a car, and a camera system can be a ‘near car’ expense. I realize very few of you are going to let that influence your decisions like I do, so I should definitely mention that.

Finally, I want to take pictures now, so I’m not going to worry about what may come out in 6 or 12 months. It’s never what I expect it to be, anyway.

So What Am I Looking For?

The most important part of my search process will come last. By that I mean that using the camera, looking at images, seeing how the camera handles and focuses, etc. are going to be the final word in my decision.

But, at my last count, there are 50 odd cameras I might consider. I’m not going to shoot with all of them for a week. First, I’ll list out what I want, then do some screening research and come up with a list of systems that appear to meet my needs. Then I’ll rank and test out what’s on the list.

I should mention I’m a sucker for the cool features (the Canon 6D‘s wifi being my most current infatuation). I know myself well enough to realize I need to start logical before the bells and whistles make me loose my train of logical thought. I’ll also look around the edges of my list because sometimes I don’t realize I want something until I see it.

Nearly Absolute Requirements

I have a few requirements for my new system.  (Focal lengths I use below are full-frame equivalent.)

Lenses

• A reasonably lightweight 400mm telephoto lens (zoom or prime)
• A high-quality macro lens (I prefer 100mm but am flexible)
• A high-quality 24-70 f/2.8 (I might consider f/4 with stabilization)
• A standard to slightly wide focal length, wide-aperture prime lens
• A wide-angle to ultra wide-angle lens (20mm acceptable, 14mm preferred)

Camera

• At least 16 megapixels resolution
• A viewfinder (optical preferred, good EVF acceptable)
• Shoe-mount flash
• Excellent ISO 800 performance
• Accurate Live View or contrast-based focus assist
• 3 frames per second minimum in RAW
• Microfocus adjustment

I won’t say the above are completely non-negotiable, but there would have to be a reasonable alternative for each of these requirements. But I’m not completely ruling out any system at this point.

One note about my megapixel requirement: I know people get wonderful 60 inch prints from their 12 megapixel cameras. I’ve got a wonderful 60-inch print from my 1 pixel camera. I call it “Snow Bank in Fog”.  Print quality depends on a lot of things including how good the initial shot was in-camera, what the subject matter is, viewing distance, and more.

I wouldn’t hesitate to make a big portrait print from a 12 megapixel camera. But my macro images, heavily post-processed and often viewed from a foot or two away, really need at least 16 megapixels for a 20 inch print, especially if I’ve done a lot of post-process manipulation. I’ll accept that a more skillful photographer may never need over 16 megapixels so we can avoid a 50-comment argument about it. But this is my camera and I would like more freedom to crop for composition, post-process more heavily if I desire, or makeup for a slightly missed shot.

Things I Would Like

Lenses

• A tilt-shift
• A true supertelephoto (300 f/2.8 minimum, 500 f/4)
• A selection of reasonably-priced, high-quality prime lenses
• Good 70-200 image stabilized zoom

Camera

• At least 20 megapixels
• Excellent dynamic range
• Excellent ISO 1600, adequate ISO 3200 performance
• 5 frames per second in RAW
• Excellent single shot AF performance (realizing this is somewhat lens-dependent within each system)

Preliminary Camera Screening

I could eliminate some systems that clearly aren’t going to meet my wants now but I’d like to do a little more research first. I might find something that warrants further investigation.

I mentioned earlier that I can make most of the prints I want to from 16 megapixels, but sometimes feel I’m right on the edge there for what I print. Plus more pixels might let me crop a bit more aggressively if my composing is a bit off. I knew it would also make up, to some degree for a lens that doesn’t resolve quite as well, which I confirmed in my last article.

There are sensor factors other than pixel count that are going to make some difference to me, too. I’m not going to test those factors because DxOMark has already done that work better than I could.  DxOMark is not The Word; nothing that tests a single sample can ever be The Word. But it provides excellent sensor data (please don’t twist this remark to claim I said something about their lens reviews; I’m talking sensor data) very nicely presented and easily used.

The Overall Sensor Score is a very blunt tool; I don’t find much benefit in compressing umpteen data points into a single number. However, I do find the three specific scores for high ISO performance, color depth, and dynamic range quite useful. I should mention I’m not looking for which camera has the absolute top score; I’ll leave that for Fanboys. I use it to compare cameras, find a range I think is excellent and good, and later compare those cameras for other factors.

Let’s start with the simplest benchmark, high ISO performance. The graph (color boxes are mine) simply shows the highest ISO setting at which each camera kept a 30dB signal to noise ratio, 9EV dynamic range, and 18-bit color depth. If you don’t care what that stuff all is, then simplify it by saying the ISO at which the camera was still giving really good images right out of the camera.

One of the nice things about the DxO graphs is they show the cameras by year of release so it let’s me know that the Nikon D3s (green arrow at the top of the page) has as high ISO performance that’s as good as the newer cameras to it’s right. This is a great tool to find 2 or 3-year-old camera that might fill your needs at a bargain price on the used market.

Again, I’m not looking for the very best camera. Real-world factors are going to make splitting hairs between the Nikon D600 (green arrow in the top corner) and the Canon 6D (green arrow along the right edge) a pretty silly thing to do. Rather I roughly thought everything in the red box is really, really good, the ones in the yellow box were certainly going to be acceptable to me, and those close to the yellow box would probably be just fine.

I repeated the exercise with the DxO Dynamic Range Score – (the DxO DR scores are measured at baseline ISO and I don’t always shoot there, but it’s still a worthwhile thing to look at).   One EV equals about a stop of light. My red box for this graph shows cameras within 1 stop of the best (the Nikon D800) and my yellow box within about 1.5 stops of the best.

Color depth is a bit less important to me than to many people; I tend to postprocess in LAB space and false colorize regularly. But it’s worth checking the same way since DxO makes it easy to do. The cameras above the red line, BTW, and a few inside the red box, are Medium Format cameras that I’m not considering.

When the dust had settled, there were 7 cameras that rated in my ‘best’ boxes in all 3 categories. There were 5 more cameras that rated best in dynamic range and color depth, ‘good’ in ISO performance, and several more that were at least in my ‘good’ boxes in every category and a couple that were ‘best’ or ‘good’ in two areas, but barely missed ‘good’ in Dynamic Range. I did eliminate those that had less than 16 megapixels and the medium format cameras from my list.

I looked at this list a bit and noticed a couple of things that were reassuring. First, the Olympus OM-D just barely missed the list, being just under my ‘good’ box in all the categories. I know that camera well. It fills many of my needs, although I will occasionally bump against its limitations. The list, then, contains cameras that should fulfill my needs, at least in theory.

Since I had decided the OM-D didn’t quite meet all my needs, I didn’t put it on the list. (Don’t get me wrong, I love the camera and have used it extensively for months. It just isn’t meeting enough of my needs now.) I should also note the Fuji X-Pro was not tested by DxO so it’s not here for that reason. But again, it doesn’t have the lenses that meet my absolute requirements list, so I won’t consider it further.

The table surprised me in several ways. First, was the dominance by Nikon cameras. I knew the D800/600/D4 cameras were highest on DxO’s rankings. I was a bit taken aback by how many Nikon APS-C cameras made this list and that no Canon APS-C cameras were even close. The current Canon crop sensor cameras are all older models due for replacement, but the gap still surprised me. Having shot with them, I know they meet my needs fairly well so perhaps my selection criteria was a bit tighter than it should have been. I certainly am not ruling them out just based on some numbers.

I wasn’t surprised by how well the Sony bodies did. After all, Sony’s sensor technology and patents are leading the pack right now. I was a bit surprised at how well the Pentax sensors rated. Again, I knew they were good, but perhaps didn’t realize just how good they were. While I wouldn’t rule out any camera just based on this list, the Pentax showing makes me very interested in looking at them a bit more thoroughly.

Narrowing Down a Little

I’m not ready to make a final list yet, but think it’s time to focus down a little and do some further comparisons.

Going back to my absolute needs the NEX system doesn’t really fill them. NEX doesn’t give me the telephoto I want at the quality I desire, nor the standard range zoom. Sure, I could rig up some things on adapters and make something that works, but I’ve got too many other options to consider that a prime choice.

I’ve been using the Olympus OM-D as my ‘home camera’ for a while and on paper it meets all my requirements except the 400mm lens one. This is going to set some Fanboys off, I know, but having shot extensively with the Olympus 75-300 and Panasonic 100-300, neither makes it for me. I’m sure someone has used that combination to shoot a mountain lion for the cover of National Geographic. Unfortunately, the image quality I’m getting with either can’t compete with good telephoto zooms on an SLR. I’m going to use the OM-D system as my baseline comparison. I expect my new system to meet my needs better than it does.

Obviously I’ll want to evaluate the Nikon systems. I’ve demonstrated to myself (if no one else) that the resolution of the D800 bodies can let me use a slightly less capable lens and still get marvelous results. The performance of the Nikon crop-sensor bodies on my little DxO search makes those worth further investigation, too. I’ve historically shot full-frame, but spending the last 6 months with an m4/3 system has shown me I could probably do most of my photography just fine with an APS-C sensor camera and rent a big boy when needed.

I love Canon’s lens selection, so I’m definitely going to consider a Canon system. While I know from experience the Canon crop-sensor cameras are capable, the numbers I’m looking at make me wonder if there’s much to attract me with the Canon 7D or 60D. I certainly am going to look at the 5D Mk III or 6D, though. They’re definitely competitive.

The Sony system definitely requires more investigation, too, and I’m interested in evaluating their improved AF system, which I’ve used only a few times. The surprise to me, at this point, is how well Pentax does by the numbers. I’ve shot with their cameras and been impressed by several features and the ergonomics, of course, but I haven’t really considered it as an entire system. I will now.

I don’t need a 10-frames-per-second pro body for what I shoot, the Canon 1D IV and 1Dx, and Nikon D4 and D3x aren’t on my list. I may revisit things and decide to look at some other cameras later, but for right now this is what I think I’ll consider further:

Full Frame:

• Nikon D800e
• Canon 5D Mk III  (I like the 6D’s built in Wi-Fi but prefer the III’s better AF – I reserve the right to change my mind)
• Sony A99

APS-C Frame

• Nikon D5200
• Pentax K-5 IIs
• Sony A-77

I’m not certain the camera I choose will be one of these, but they’re certainly the front runners at this point.
In the next article I’ll look a bit at system (rather than camera) costs before I start actually evaluating things further.

Roger Cicala

Lensrentals.com

February, 2012

I do enjoy slapping an M-mount lens in front of my mirrorless camera once in a while, don’t get me wrong. But I don’t consider putting a large legacy zoom on an adapter mounted to a tiny camera a particularly useful endeavor.

I took a fair amount of email and forum criticism for that, from being called a weak old man (no argument from me) to being told I just hadn’t tried this or that favorite lens or else I wouldn’t talk that way.

One guy went so far as to say he owned over 50 lenses, and if I had his experience I wouldn’t limit myself. Now a more mature person than me would just laugh and move along. But age and maturity do not always arrive at the same time.

So I stomped into the back and asked the techs to give me the best possible zoom lens that could be shot on an adapter with my Olympus OM-D.

I was going to give this a fair trial. So here we go: The Red 18-85 T/2.9 PL zoom on my OM-D. Sharpest zoom with wide aperture, I said. That’s what they gave me.

Is it breathtakingly sharp? Yep, I believe so.

I say believe so because while I’m capable of handholding a 300mm f/2.8 for hours and a 500 f/4 for a shot or two, at 26-inches long and 9.9 pounds I was able to take, oh about three shots before I had to take some Motrin.

It vignettes a bit, but this extreme corner at T2.9 rivals any lens we’ve got for sharpness. This and a picture of the back of someone’s head were the two shots I took before I decided I should go do some testing.

Not that I couldn’t hold it longer if I really wanted to. More like I didn’t want to spend the afternoon at the minor med getting my shoulder X-rayed.

So did I learn anything today?

Yeah, I learned I was correct in saying I wanted to shoot native mount, AF lenses on my mirrorless cameras.

My Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 may only have half the range of the Big Red Zoom. But at 1/10th the cost and 1/15th the weight, with autofocus to boot, I’ll be content with it for now. Unless I can figure out a way to put a tripod mount on that Red Zoom.

Roger Cicala

Lensrentals.com

August 2012

Aaron is a Chicago-based photographer and retoucher who combines elements of reality and fantasy to create his images. Aaron has taught Photoshop and photography to over 100,000 people, and his images have been viewed over 15 million times on Flickr alone.

He is also the founder and president of Phlearn.com, which offers daily videos, advanced tutorials, featured photographers and more. Aaron is one creative, hard-working guy, and we’re thankful he has the time to show you guys some of the magic behind his work!

The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II is what I call a “superlative lens.” It is very different from anything you can get from a point-and-shoot or an iPhone. It is at an extreme, and the images that it produces reflect that extreme, bringing the viewer into another world.

“Superlative” lenses really have to stretch the extremes, so not many lenses fit in this category. The Canon 85mm f/1.2L II is a superlative in that it allows you to photograph with an extremely shallow depth of field. Anything longer than 200mm at f/2.8 I would also consider superlative, as it compresses an image far more than the human eye does. Using one of these superlative lenses will make your photography stand out.

Include More

Using the 16-35 on a full-frame body like the Canon EOS 5D Mark III will allow you to get extremely close to your subject while also capturing the entire environment. If you are shooting in an amazing environment this is a plus. If your location leaves a lot to be desired, you may choose to shoot at a longer focal length in order to crop some of it out. Sometimes your environment may not be great on its own but can be enhanced with lighting. In this example you can see how the original photo includes too much.

The back door is in view, and light is spilling into the scene from many directions. Instead of trying to change the environment physically, you can alter its appearance with light. Also a slight change of camera angle will avoid distracting elements like the back door.

In the final shot, I used a large softbox, camera left, to light the scene. A fast shutter speed allowed the light from the outdoors to go to black. Doing this made the water and the subject the focal point of the image.

Adding Drama

The wide angle lens shows off the environment and pulls you into the image. It is as though the water really is rushing towards you. Just in case you are curious, minimal Photoshop was done to the final image—we really did pour hundreds of gallons of water down these steps.

Floor to Ceiling

Using a wide angle lens will allow you to capture the floor and the ceiling of a small room at the same time. If you use this to your advantage, you can include a lot of great detail. One thing I have learned from shooting wide is that most ceilings are bare and boring.   In order to avoid the lack of detail present in the ceiling, I added a flurry of leaves to the room. Two leaf blowers were used just outside of the room, stirring up a tornado and allowing leaves to go everywhere.

These shots were composited together with the final images of the model to create a dramatic photo with detail from floor to ceiling.

Converging Lines

Straight lines made by walls and ceilings will converge more dramatically when photographed with a wide angle lens. If you can, place your subject where these lines come together, and they will help to lead the viewer’s eyes straight to the subject.

Lighting

One problem many photographers face when shooting wide is getting too much in their scene. If you are using lighting such as a softbox or beauty dish, it may be very hard to keep this equipment out of the image. At the same time, not using lights may cause your image to be underexposed in key areas.   If you expose for the outdoors, the subject of this image would be dramatically underexposed. In order to expose both, a softbox was necessary.

The subject and the background are now exposed well for the final image, but the softbox is visible to the viewer. This is where Photoshop comes in. If you do have to include lighting in the shot, be sure to take a photo in the same place with the lighting moved. Then you can simply replace that part of the image. As you can see, the final shot does not contain any of those elements, allowing the viewer to focus on the subject.

Center Your Subject

If you are shooting a person, be sure to keep them near the center of your frame when shooting with a wide angle lens. These lenses cause a bit of perspective distortion, and if your subject’s face is near the edges, it will come out looking like you printed their face on a fruit rollup and then pulled it apart.

—–

Thanks again, Aaron!

To learn more about photography, lighting, and how to Photoshop together images like these, check out Phlearn.com. They make five free videos a week and offer the most in-depth Photoshop tutorials on the internet. Pretty sweet deal if you ask us!

 Hope you enjoyed!

Caroline Bishop

Lensrentals.com

June, 2012

This time of year, we get tons of phone calls asking for gear recommendations for the big summer vacation. Sadly, we also get a few post-vacation phone calls from customers, where they tell us what they wish they had known before heading out for their trips.

We’ve gotten Tim and Roger to pool their collective knowledge on what they feel are some things you really should consider before your next trip. The items they are recommending today are not all the most popular items to rent, in fact most of these items are often overlooked for vacation use.

So before you board that cruise ship, safari tour jeep, or station wagon for the wildest 17-hour drive of your life to visit the Corn Palace, let us help you pick the right gear!

The Griswold Family, National Lampoon's Vacation. Photo Credit: bearseatpeople.com.

Second Camera Body

First off, there are two very different types of vacations in this world: civilized and wilderness (or uncivilized, as Roger likes to say). And they each can require very different types of preparation and equipment.

We’ve had almost 20 customers who have gone on African safaris and come home with no pictures because their own camera broke on day one or two. That’s why we say have a small, light back-up camera body (that’s not your cell phone).

Don't be this guy. Photo credit: Break.com

If you are a Canon user, try a Canon EOS 60D or a T-Series camera (like the Canon EOS T3i or brand new T4i). If you are a Nikon user, try a Nikon D7000 (Roger’s pick) or a Nikon D3200 (Tim’s pick).

Make sure you get a back-up body that is compatible with your existing lenses (and, hey, if you’re not sure about this part, just let us know which lenses you want to take on your vacation with your rented camera body, and we’ll make sure everything will work together.).

Vacation “Everything” Zoom Lens

Most people want to travel fairly light. As far as lightweight vacation lenses go, the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS is both Tim’s and Roger’s personal favorite. Roger pretty well doesn’t leave home without it—or rather, when he does leave home, he doesn’t leave without it. It’s just so useful, and it’s so nice to have one lens that does most things.

Many people have a tough time choosing between this lens and the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L. It’s true, they’re both great lenses!  But when it comes to vacations, Roger always goes with the  Canon 24-105 f/4L IS. Just look at the advantages—smaller size, greater range and image stabilization—all of which make it perfect for walking around or taking on vacation.

If you plan on renting this lens, though, consider this: it’s pretty wide on a full-frame camera. But if you are shooting with a crop-frame camera, this is not a very wide lens. You should think about taking a Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/2.5-4.5 to go with it. Or, as Tim suggests, you could rent the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM by itself, since it’s a wide lens that is better suited for a crop-frame camera.

If you’re shooting with a full-frame Nikon, try the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G AF-S VR (Nikon’s version of the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS). And for the crop-frame cameras, the Nikon 16-85mm  f/3.5-5.6G VR DX  is Nikon’s equivalent to the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.

Lightweight Prime Lens

On every vacation there are going to be times that you are inside, where the lighting is poor. This is when you need a wide aperture lens. And again, you’ll want something lightweight like the Canon 50mm f/1.4 or Nikon 50mm f/1.4G AF-S. These are both great lenses for vacation since they’ve got faster apertures for indoor shots and night shots of the city.

Tim throws in the option of the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G AF-S, which is pretty much the same lens as its f/1.4 brother except that the f/1.8 is half the weight!

Canon 50mm f/1.4 and Nikon 50mm f/1.4G AF-S

Handy Telephoto Lens

Ahhh, the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS —nice sharp lens, very good range, not too heavy, excellent image stabilization—all things that are very useful on vacation trips. It’s also a fair amount smaller than any of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses or Canon 100-400mm 5.4-5.6L IS.

Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS

On the Nikon side, it’s more difficult to find an equal. Roger says their 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR is just OK; their 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 ED AF VR is very weak. With a Nikon he often says take a 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR II plus a teleconverter or a Sigma 50-500mm HSM OS for Nikon.

If you are thinking safari this summer, then go with Sigma 50-500mm HSM OS (for Canon, Nikon, or Sony). It is a great range, nice and sharp, and with optical stabilization can be handheld . . . for a while anyway.

Another note on safaris: Roger will tell you that there is nothing like having one lens-camera combination around your neck and another at your side if you need it. So if that giraffe you are shooting half a mile away is one thing and suddenly there’s a lion 50 yards away, you can change lenses real quick. That’s a really cool thing to have (or, if you are going somewhere that your tripod rig might get eaten by a bear, you’ll have the second camera around your neck to take pictures of the carnage).

It’s also a really cool thing to have on “civilized” vacations, like when you are taking pictures of your family making sand castles and then see the most ridiculous tan line/swimsuit combo on the other end of the beach (and you don’t want to get caught lookin’).

Good Walking-Around Camera

Tim emphasizes this the most. He’s done the whole mega-backpack loaded down with equipment on vacations. But nowadays he just wants the lightest, most convenient way to go (not the highest quality). After all, he says the majority of the pictures he takes on vacation aren’t meant for blowing up on the wall—most of the time it’s just a 8×10 frame or going on Facebook.

The Fuji X10 and Canon Powershot G1 X (like their Canon Powershot G12 but fancier) are both good walk around city/wilderness cameras. Both are fairly small in size and even have zoom lenses! The Nikon 1 V1 or Nikon 1 J1 are somewhere between a Canon Rebel camera and a point-and-shoot. Image quality-wise, they are closer to a Canon Rebel, but you have about the same control as a point-and-shoot. Bottom line: they’re easy to use and easy to print a quality 8×10 phot0.

Underwater (and Worry-Free) Camera

The Canon Powershot D20 Underwater Camera is a fun alternative if you are going to be near water. If you have never taken your SLR to the beach, you don’t realize what an incredible pain it is trying to change lenses and keep your camera dry and sand-free. It’s worrisome.

Still take an SLR on vacation, but on the beach itself take the Canon Powershot D20 Underwater Camera. Jump in the pool with it, take underwater pictures of the kids playing, go out on a boat, go snorkeling—you can do all of that without having to fuss with an SLR. It’s still not going to have nearly the image quality of an SLR, but it’s great for JPEGs online or a 4×6 print for a little frame.

Canon Powershot D20 Underwater Camera

Another wonderful thing is that it fits in your pocket. Roger says there have been many times he and the family have gone out to a restaurant and taken the D20 because nobody wanted to carry the big cameras.

Tim thinks this is a strange idea. He says leave the underwater camera for well, the water, not the restaurant. Take the good walking-around camera for that instead.

Listen up though, divers: if you are diving and are trying to get really good pictures, it’s worth bringing out the big guns like the Sea&Sea DX-1G or DX-2G Underwater Kit (consider them interchangeable) and a Sea&Sea YS-110 Underwater Strobe Kit.  Flash underwater doesn’t work the same way that it does above water, and the little bitty flash on cameras like the Canon Powershot D20 would only be enough to light up to three feet in front of you.

And, no, we don’t rent underwater housing: their failure rate is low but it’s real, and there is no hope for your camera if the housing does so happen to leak on you. Not to mention there’s really not a good way for us to test the housings at 200 feet to see if they’re working properly. So, unless you can afford to replace the camera you’ll put in it, please don’t do it. Roger tears up just thinking about it—all those beautiful SLRs that were never even given a chance.

A Flash

There are two really opposite reasons you will want a flash on your vacation:

1. On vacation you do tend to do a lot of stuff at night, and you’ll need a flash to give proper lighting to the campfire roast or the amusement park off the beach or your cruise-ship-dance-off-winning Worm move.
2. The sun is so strong during the day. You’ll get really stark pictures with the sun glaring on one side of a person’s face and the other side totally dark and shadow unless you have a fill flash. It makes a huge difference.

Ultra-Wide Angle Lens

The lens people usually forget is ultra-wide angle. When you go on vacation, there is usually beautiful, huge scenery that you can’t capture with a regular lens, and you need something really wide. Roger says if you take one, it will only be 10 percent of the pictures you bring home, but it will probably be your favorite 10 percent.

For Tim, it’s simple: the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (for Canon or Nikon) is the ultra-wide angle of choice. Roger, of course, rambles on this subject.

Tokin11-16mm f/2.8

If shooting with a crop-frame camera, Roger says they’re all good: Sigma 10-20mm EX DC HSM (for Canon or Nikon), the aforementioned Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 or the Nikon 10-24mmf/3.5-4.5G DX.

If shooting with a full-frame camera, it’s a different story; there just isn’t as good of a selection of ultra-wide angle lenses. For Canon, there’s the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II. For Nikon, the 14-24mm f/2.8 ED is the best, but the 16-35mm f/4 VR is what Roger usually takes. It’s nearly as good, a lot smaller and has vibration reduction.

Ultralight Tripod

Small enough to tuck anywhere. Great for landscapes. It’ll let you get sunsets, the night sky, the lights of the city, and self-portraits. One year, Roger even set up a  tripod in the corner of a room and set the camera to take a picture every 30 seconds. They’d play games, sit around and talk, eat, so on. Those were some of everyone’s favorite photos of the trip because of how candid they were.

Roger says you only need a tripod if one of the main purposes of the trip is to take photographs. If you are looking to just document a vacation, a tripod isn’t necessary.

You also don't need a tripod if you're this guy. Photo credit: Juzaphoto.com.

As far as picking which one, the Benro Ultra Light is the best choice. It’s super cheap and (of course) lightweight. The Gitzo Traveler Ultralight is awesome, but it’s twice as expensive and only a half pound lighter. The Giottos Compact Tripod/Monopod is another great, much more cost effective choice than the Gitzo.

When you need the stability of a tripod, but you don’t want to carry the thing around, a Gorillapod is a fun, convenient alternative. They’re much smaller, lightweight, more compact and can fix on to pretty much anything with their bendable legs. Just make sure to get the right size: for point-and-shoot cameras you’ll need a large, and for SLR-size cameras you’ll need an extra-large. Roger LOVES Gorillapods.

Large Gorillapod

Spares

Extra batteries and memory cards are always a great idea for vacation. And you should always always take something to back up your photos. Whether it’s your laptop/ iPad and a card reader or several smaller memory cards (like four 8G, instead of one 32G), you will thank yourself later.

And don’t be that person who gets all this sweet gear and then leaves it in your hotel room the entire trip because it’s “too much” to walk around with. If you are really going to carry camera equipment around all day, a backpack makes that much easier.

Roger advises to take the backpack that fits your spouse, not you, so he/she has to carry all the stuff. Roger has a backpack that is slightly too small for him, and he travels (well his wife, Erin, travels) with that all the time.

Video

Our last recommendation is the GoPro HD HERO2 Action Cam!

GoPro HD HERO2 Action Cam

There are all sorts of mounts for whatever adventure you want to take this baby on from chest harnesses to handlebar mounts.

If you are going somewhere cool and you are going to be doing active things, the Go Pro is a great idea. If you’re going on a cruise, you don’t need a Go Pro. Well, we guess it depends on what you are going on the cruise for, but there are probably some cruises that we don’t really want to know about…

We advise that this item is mostly for vacationers under 30, who think heli-snowboarding and mountain climbing are relaxing. Once you get over 30, and your ideal vacation consists of sitting, sleeping, eating, and muttering the simple command “beer!” video documentation isn’t all that important :)

—–

Whatever you do with your summer, enjoy it! And if you need anymore help figuring out what to take on your trips, just let us know. We are always more than happy to help you out!

Caroline Bishop

Lensrentals.com

June, 2012

Hey Everyone! We’re so glad to be able to share on the Lensrentals blog! We love this company, and it is by FAR our favorite rental company to use. Let’s get started on today’s Tuesday Tips & Tricks!

Lens choice is so much more than just getting a different look on an image. Using the right lens for the job can make—or break—the story that you are trying to tell. It can bring attention to—or completely distract—your viewer from what should and should not be seen in an image. So instead of talking about tons of lens choices and tons of options, we are going to talk about just one of our favorite lenses that we use for photographing weddings and the perspective that this particular lens gives us. Without further ado, let us introduce you to one of the greatest lenses ever produced, the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II.

This lens is considered a “portrait” length lens, and let’s first talk about what that means. Portrait length lenses are usually between 85mm and 105mm (depending on who you ask), and the reason a shorter lens (like say the Canon 50mm f/1.2L) is not considered a portrait lens is due to the perspective that it gives.

A 50mm lens (on a full frame censor camera like the Canon EOS 5D Mark III that we use) gives a “normal” perspective, meaning that things through that lens look similar to what your naked eye sees. Things look average and normal on a 50mm. So if you want an image to look like you were standing right there when it was shot, then a 50mm would be a good choice!

If, however, you want to start altering reality, you can go wider than 50mm, or longer than 50mm. An 85mm lens actually compresses reality in a tight, neat little box. It makes everything look closer together, and it gives the viewer the feeling that someone was peering into a moment rather than standing right there in it.

This is a great lens for shooting many parts of a wedding because as a wedding photographer, when shooting the moments that are happening during the day, we want the feel of the images to seem as though we were not there at all. We want it to feel like someone happened to be looking in on a private moment, and this lens does that for us!

If we had used shorter lenses or wide angle lenses like a 24mm or 16mm, the images would not have the feeling of intimacy like they do in the above shots. We also love using it for portraits for a few reasons.

1. For portraits, this lens gives us that compression that we talked about earlier. It also helps us as the photographers to not seem as though we were there but rather that someone just happened to see a great moment between two people.

2. Longer lenses help throw the background out of focus which helps put the focus on our client and not what’s going on around them.

3. It helps eliminate distracting elements by pushing out elements around our client through compression. When you use a longer lens, you can make an area of a few small parts come together as one by compressing reality and getting rid of things you don’t want to see. Take for example, the two images below. The first was shot using our Canon 24mm f/2.8.

And then, look at the difference! How a different look is created by simply shooting with a longer lens (the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II) and framing the distracting background out.

We were recently demonstrating this idea at one of our IN-CAMERA workshops that we host around the country. At the workshop, we were taking a simple portrait of a model we had hired for the day. We had this building about 150 feet away from where we were standing that made for a super cool background. So we shot it with two different lenses to show what the perspective could really do and what impact using the right lens at the right time can have.

Long lenses will make distant objects in the background look larger than they really are and can play to your advantage in the right situation when you need to include some things and get rid of other distracting elements. In the below image (taken at 30mm), you can see how small the building in the background appears to look and how distracting all the elements around our subject are.

Now, in the final images you can see what a huge difference using the 85 to compress the sides and top/bottom of the image did and how big the background now looks in comparison. Also, using the lines of the railing adds further enhancement to the overall composition and style of the shot.

So to give you some perspective on our shooting style, we take most of the portraits and moments that happen throughout the wedding day on the longest lenses we can to give them an intimate feel and look. We make boring and even bad locations look great by including what works and cutting out what doesn’t. We do shoot wide images—and we love the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L to show the story of what is happening—but our go-to lenses for portraits are the longer lenses.

If you don’t have any (and before you spend a bundle of money) rent the lenses you’re interested in. See how you like them and get a feel for them before you invest your hard-earned money! And what a coincidence, Lensrentals just happens to rent whatever gear you need.

Thanks so much for checking out this blog post, and let us know in the comments what YOUR favorite lens is and why you love it!! Feel free to join us every Tuesday on our own blog for more free photography tips & tricks!

ZachandJody.com/blog

—

Thanks Zach & Jody!

In case this is your first time exposed to Zach and Jody Gray, they have been aiding photographers for the last 4 years with free tips and tricks on their blog and newsletter. Zach & Jody go beyond just teaching you the photography, but teach you how to nurture, develop and grow your business. They have just launched their brand new business DVD “Harvest”. This DVD is NOT about photography—it’s about your business. It teaches you the tools to make serious money in your business and how to attract, court and keep your clients re-selling your services through word-of-mouth and word-of-mouse marketing. To check out more info and to purchase the DVD, go to www.HarvestDVD.com.

Way back in the day, when the first mirrorless cameras were released, I was on them like white on rice. I desperately wanted to love, well, any of them: The Sigma DP-1, Panasonic G1, Olympus E-P1, Leica X-1, and more all passed through my hands. Many people loved having a small camera that delivered high image quality. I loved that idea, too, but I didn’t love those first cameras because of what they couldn’t do. They couldn’t shoot high ISO. There weren’t many lenses. Autofocus times reminded me of loading pages on dial-up internet connections. But I at the time (way back in 2009) that I thought this was the future of consumer imaging. I predicted that by their third generation, mirrorless cameras would eventually take over the intro-level SLR slot.

Two full years has passed. Second-generation technology and many more lenses were released. And this year a LOT of new, smaller cameras came out. Many were now third generation for their companies. Others were from new companies with new ideas. So I paid a lot more attention as the cameras rolled out this time. I even influenced the-keeper-of-the-purse to buy into several new smaller camera lines. (Which largely consisted of me promising that these would be different than all those X-1, X-100, and DP-1 bodies that never rented).

This time, I was going to have a lot of options to choose from. And this wasn’t just me forming an opinion for Lensrentals; it was time for me to buy a new personal camera. Like every other Lensrentals employee I can take equipment home when it’s available. But in the summer months, what I want often isn’t available when I want it. Last week Tim and I were circling a single Olympus OM-D E-M5 like a couple of buzzards looking at fresh roadkill. Tim played the “I have to write the take on it so I need to have it this weekend” card. Four other people were drawing straws for the only Canon 70-200 f/2.8 left on the shelf. So I planned on two purchases this summer: a new SLR (next blog post for that) and a new small camera.

With that in mind, as every new small camera has been released I’ve tested it, taken it home for a weekend’s shooting, in some cases even taken it apart, or Imatested the available lenses for it. I was going to decide which small camera was The Best and tell you all about why this was so. But the more I tested the current systems, the more I decided I wouldn’t have anything to tell anyone about which mirrorless camera THEY should get. The more I looked into these cameras, the more I concluded that the Rashomon Effect was going to be far more important than any tables and lists I could make about camera features and flaws.

The Rashomon Effect

The Rashomon Effect is named from a superb 1950′s movie in which 4 characters all witness the same event, yet each has very different, but equally plausible, opinions about what happened. The phenomenon is very real and studied in fields such as psychology and criminology. There are a lot of reasons why people have such different opinions when given the same facts. Most of the difference is because the observers are different – they have varied backgrounds, knowledge, and expectations.

I’ll give you an example. When asked what the best restaurant in my area is, I have an immediate answer, there’s one that I simply love and we go there every week. The food is good, the service is quick, and it’s casual enough that we don’t need to get dressed up. I told some of my friends about it and their opinions were totally different. My first friend said he liked the food and service, but it was really overpriced for a casual place. The second thought the food was average at best and he wouldn’t go back. The third took a date there and thought it was rushed and crowded.

Now if restaurant discussions were online photography forums, the four of us would have a 90-post thread where each of us called the other three idiots who didn’t have any eating skills. But since we are real people having real discussions, it quickly became apparent why we had such different opinions. I generally eat breakfast and lunch at my desk, and won’t go out to dinner if it’s going to take more than an hour because I do my writing after work and on weekends. I hate to dress up for any occasion, and when we do go out we have a 10 year old to entertain and despite an iPad and GameBoy he’s not going to sit through a 4 course meal. My favorite restaurant’s fast service and casual atmosphere were all great things, and the food was superb when compared to my usual Pizza Hut cuisine.

But my first friend is just starting a family. Money is tight and when he and his wife get to go out, it’s a big deal involving a baby sitter. Pricey, quick, and casual just doesn’t make it for him for their rare date night. My second friend is a gourmet and eats out at least 3 or 4 nights a week. What is great food to me was boring and plain to him. For my third friend, the lack of ambiance was a killer – his priorities were about the eventual outcome of his date, not about getting good food quickly.

Just as the Rashomon Effect made my opinion about restaurants completely different from theirs, it was probably going to make my opinion about small cameras completely different from yours. So instead of telling you which small camera is The Best, I’ll just tell you about my own decision making process in choosing the one that was right for me. The truth is most of the current mirrorless cameras are really quite good, though, and what was right for me may well not be the best choice for you.

What I Wanted in a Small Camera

On my small camera wish list I have four absolute priorities. Small is my first priority (my definition of small is “fit’s in my wife’s purse”). It also must absolutely have a viewfinder. I live in the South; the sun can glare out any LCD screen made, leaving me shooting blind if there’s no viewfinder. My third priority is it must have a range of available focal lengths. I loved the Fuji X100, but over time realized I couldn’t stand having only one focal length available. My final absolute priority has to do with my inability to focus a rangefinder camera. Because I have eye problems, I just can’t do it.

My absolute criteria, then, ruled out the Leica M9 and X-2, Fuji X100, Panasonic GF-3, Sigma DP-2x, and Nikon J1. The Fuji X-Pro 1, Panasonic GH-2, and Canon G1X weren’t completely ruled out, but all where a bit bigger than I hoped for, so they certainly had a strike against them. The G1X does have a viewfinder, but it’s awful so I ruled it out because of its combination of large size and bad viewfinder. All of the above are pretty good cameras. They just don’t fit my particular requirements.

Next it was time to move on to my preferences. My strongest preference was a good autofocus system with native-mount, autofocus lenses. At the same time, I would like to shoot some manual focus lenses M mount lenses on an adapter if the camera had an excellent MF assist system. (I preferred a peaking filter like the Sony NEX cameras, but would consider a good focus magnification system on a clear, high-resolution EFV.) While not absolute rule-outs, this criterion dropped the Fuji X Pro-1 on my list. (I realize there’s a rule that every camera product made from 2010 forward has to have an X in the name, but I’m not sure of the wisdom of naming a mirrorless camera “ex-pro”. Is that who they expect to shoot it? Old photographers who used to be pros?)

You’re probably screaming “what about image quality?” about now. That’s one area where the Rashomon Effect is probably going to differentiate me from most people. I know that 95% of the time the images from my small camera go nowhere other than online jpgs or my wife’s Facebook page. When I do print, though, I print large (16″ x 20″ and up). The sensors in the Sony NEX, Fuji X-1 Pro, Samsung NX20, and the 16-megapixel m4/3 cameras could certainly make 16″ x 20″ prints at near 300 DPI. There was certainly some question as to whether the lenses you put in front of all of those resolved well enough to make that print as sharp as I would like, which is part of my motivation for testing Micro 4/3 and Sony E mount lenses lately. So I felt image quality would be more about the lenses than the bodies.

There was an easy winner to the lens part of my selection process: the micro 4/3 group has by far the best selection of good lenses in native mount. It’s not close. There are finally some good E mount prime lenses, but Panasonic has countered that by announcing f/2.8 fixed-aperture zooms.  Both NEX and m4/3 offer me the option of shooting Leica, Zeiss, and Voigtlander M mount lenses on adapters, which is a nice plus for me. Sony’s peaking filter makes manual focus a dream, but the NEX 7 has issues with some of the wide-angle lenses, which complicates things a bit.

One other part, though, was a problem. I shoot medium telephoto images – 35mm equivalent of 150-300mm. That range is a huge weakness for all mirrorless systems right now. I know some of you will disagree with my assessment of m4/3 and Sony telephoto lenses. Which brings us back to the Rashomon Effect. In this case, maybe I’m the gourmet diner who finds the food just not good enough. I’ve shot with excellent telephoto lenses and to me Panasonic 100-300, Olympus 75-300, Sony 18-200 and 55-210, etc. are just barely adequate. And no, I have no desire to put a 3-pound lens on an adapter and attach it to my pocket camera. If I’m going to take a big lens with me, then I might as well take a big-boy camera, too.

What I Decided

First and foremost, I decided I’d been wrong two years ago when I said, “the third generation of mirrorless cameras will largely replace starter SLRs”. We’re close, and I still believe this to be inevitable, but not quite there yet. Largely that’s because the lens selection isn’t quite there yet, even though it’s getting better quickly. I still feel the takeover is inevitable, though.

Early in my decision making process I ruled out a couple of cameras. I really liked the Fuji X-Pro, its lenses, and its roadmap. But the AF system isn’t what I hoped for, and it looks like it may be the X-Pro II before that gets fixed. Given its higher price, the X-Pro would have to be better than the competition for me to consider it. It isn’t, so I didn’t and the X-Pro was eliminated.  Everything I’ve read about the Pentax K-01 says it’s excellent, too, but we don’t stock Pentax so I didn’t try it either.

I was very impressed with the Samsung NX20. I expect everyone will steal their integrated Wi-Fi setup. It’s the first one I’ve ever been able to use consistently. Samsung has a decent lens selection and a large, 20 Mpix sensor that is quite good. Finally, it has a really good EVF and a high quality LCD. The more I use this little guy the more I like it. The biggest hold off, for me, is the lack of high quality adapters for Leica lenses (only a matter of time, I know, but I’m impatient). That would be an issue for very few people, though, and this camera probably deserves more consideration than it generally gets.

Of the Micro 4/3 cameras, the Olympus OM-D was my favorite. It’s full featured, the autofocus is amazing fast and accurate, it fit’s my hands comfortably, and just does everything efficiently and well. I will add, though, if I shot video, I may have gone with the Panasonic GH-2, even though it’s larger size was not appealing to me. Finally, if money were the primary consideration, I’d say the Panasonic G3 is an amazing bargain for $500.

Of the NEX cameras, whether I went with the NEX 7 or the NEX 5n would have been a coin flip. Cost (when you add the EVF to the 5n) is similar. I always likes me some extra megapixels, but there a lot of reports suggest that the 5n actually does some things better than the 7. The tilting LCD screen is a real positive to me, too.

I’d really prefer the APS-C sensor size, all other things being equal, and I love the peaking filter, but in the end I chose the Olympus OM-D over the Sony NEX. The images are still good enough to make a large print, and when I want to play narrow-depth-of-field I’ll be shooting an SLR. Despite no peaking filer, I found both the viewfinder and LCD on the Olympus let me manually focus with good accuracy. I really liked the camera, but not for any “it’s clearly better” reasons. I just found it intuitive and easy to use.

The biggest reason for my choice, though, is one that I suspect will apply to very few people other than me (and therefore my choice will be a good example of the Rashomon Effect). I discovered that I could get really good telephoto images on either the m4/3 or NEX systems by shooting Leica 90mm f/2.8 and 135mm f/3.4 Telyt lenses. The images were far better than I could get with any of the native-mount telephoto lenses and the lenses themselves are quite small, which is important to me when working with a small camera. The Olympus provides in-camera image stabilization with these lenses, allowing me to shoot them hand-held even if the light isn’t great. That was one of the major reasons for my choice.

So for me, the choice of which mirrorless camera ended up being quite simple. If someone else had done all of the same evaluations that I did, they probably would have made a different choice. We all have different shooting styles and different priorities. If I didn’t shoot telephoto, if I had a single favorite focal length that I did most of my shooting at, if I was moving up from a point and shoot rather than down from an SLR, any of several other cameras would have met my needs.

Roger Cicala

Lensrentals.com

June, 2012