Help please, can't decide which path to take. Upgrading from D750

[Gloor]

Honestly, the global shutter looks like the future it seems. I didn't know that even electronically shutter now was still rolling (why?) so the global shutter makes the most sense. Why can't we have it in all cameras? is it the processing power that is limiting us?

Anyway, its true that technically anything I'll pick will be good enough but that doesn't mean that I won't do my research to pick the best option.

So far, I like Nikon Z8 or Sony A7RV (probably Sony a bit more as the setup with 24-70 is smaller and lighter than Nikon)

What I don't like is that Sony is a bit boxy when holding which I'm sure I'll get used to it but now its the feeling I had when I picked it up in a store

Well, sure, but those aren't likely to be the cameras that Gloor is looking at based on his parameters. Could be wrong, though. And a lot of people are totally astounded by wonky photos from using the electronic shutter so they think something is wrong with their camera. It's good to know the differences between the two.

 

[Clix Pix]

Honestly, the global shutter looks like the future it seems. I didn't know that even electronically shutter now was still rolling (why?) so the global shutter makes the most sense. Why can't we have it in all cameras? is it the processing power that is limiting us?

Anyway, its true that technically anything I'll pick will be good enough but that doesn't mean that I won't do my research to pick the best option.

So far, I like Nikon Z8 or Sony A7RV (probably Sony a bit more as the setup with 24-70 is smaller and lighter than Nikon)

What I don't like is that Sony is a bit boxy when holding which I'm sure I'll get used to it but now its the feeling I had when I picked it up in a store

I think the the technology for global shutters has been challenging for camera manufacturers, which is why it is only now beginning to appear in some camera brands. Over time we will probably have them in at least one or more models in all manufacturers' lines. My guess is that for a while it'll only be in "flagship" models.

Absolutely it pays off to keep researching, keep watching what's going on in the industry, taking time to decide which will be the best choice for you and your needs/wants/goals when it comes to photography. It's an expensive endeavor, no question about that! So, yes, might as well spend your funds for something which you feel really works for you and helps you achieve what you want to do.

Some of the Sony lenses are quite small and light, but there's no way around it, some lenses have to be larger and heavier, and all lens technology these days is fairly complex. Faster lenses are going to be heavier due to the requirements of the optics. Usually zoom lenses are pretty heavy, too, although I was surprised (and delighted!) at the relative light weight of both the 70-200mm GM II f/2.8 and the 70-200mm G f/4. The 24-70mm and the A7R V are a very comfortable combination to hold and carry as well.

In handling, one thing to which to pay attention is how the lens and camera body handle in use, if they are well-balanced, etc. And, yes, we all have individual preferences with regard to how a camera feels in our hands, both with and without a lens attached. As a petite woman with small hands the Sony body works well for me, but some users prefer to add a grip, which may make it more comfortable for them.

Sometimes people will rent a lens and/or camera body for a few days in order to be able to spend some time with them in the kinds of shooting scenarios envisioned before making a decision about whether or not to buy them. This is an option available through some brick-and-mortar camera shops (the few which are still around!) as well as through a couple of online sources.

 

[r.harris1]

Honestly, the global shutter looks like the future it seems. I didn't know that even electronically shutter now was still rolling (why?) so the global shutter makes the most sense. Why can't we have it in all cameras? is it the processing power that is limiting us?

Anyway, its true that technically anything I'll pick will be good enough but that doesn't mean that I won't do my research to pick the best option.

So far, I like Nikon Z8 or Sony A7RV (probably Sony a bit more as the setup with 24-70 is smaller and lighter than Nikon)

What I don't like is that Sony is a bit boxy when holding which I'm sure I'll get used to it but now its the feeling I had when I picked it up in a store

The global shutter has a ways to go before it's in all cameras, and even now, it has its challenges in image quality. It'll get there, obviously, but mechanical and electronic shutter hybrids or all-electronic shutters (depending on sensor read-off speeds) are still state-of-the-art. Anything you choose will be great for a very long time, including after the global shutter is mass-produced. And, too, GS isn't going to produce better images; it's just going to make specific use-cases (e.g., high-speed capture) a bit better. As others have said, it's hard to go wrong with any manufacturer, and it's really a matter of personal preferences, ergonomics, lens choices, and so forth. And lens choices are all pretty much on par these days, too. Handle a camera if you can (and it seems like you've done so), work through its UI/UX, and go from there.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

I can't compare to the Tamron as I don't have any Tamron lenses, nor any Sigma lenses.

Seems like most would recommend Sony lenses over 3rd party, which is ironic as part of the selling point is having that large 3rd party lineup. I did not know until recently that Sony is limiting burst rate on 3rd party lenses as well, which is kind of a bummer. When I add up Sony lens prices, it doesn't really offset the higher A1ii price vs. Canon. And personally, I like the Canon long zoom (100-500 and 200-800) lineup better than Sony (100-400, 200-600, 400-800) and I can live with better portability vs speed. But it's something I have to try out first.

I have the Sony 85mm f/1.8 which I bought early-on but I find that I tend not to use that lens all that often -- its length just doesn't really fit into the kind of shooting I do since I don't shoot many people (candids or portraits). 85mm is well suited to that purpose, though.

Yes, 85mm is more of a portrait lens. I like it for animals and every now and then it comes in handy for street. Not too often as that's more a 35mm job (at least for me)

just realised that Sony is mechanical whilst Nikon is electronically shutter. Isn't electronically better and do we expect Sony to switch to that also? Anyone knows any good tech on horizon I could maybe wait for, please? I'm not in a rush

I don't think there's better. Despite fast readout speeds for ES, MS can come on handy (flash and LED light). Otherwise I think ES is the way to go, if readout speed is fast enough. It also allows fast burs for moving objects. MS is just slow. Image quality wise, you will see a little difference when pixel peeping. Global shutter is great, but I doubt we'll see it in high res sensors anytime soon. It's 24MP for now and maybe another two generations or so. Canon experimented with global shutter sensors and decided not to use them due to quality. I think the benefit is really for high frame rates shooting sports or wildlife.

 

[richardallan]

I don't know if this will be of any help but I bought a Sony A7RV about 18 months ago. One reason I chose a Sony camera was for the massive selection of available lenses. I got a lot of advice from users on the DP Review forums and in the end I went with a Sony 24-70 f2.8 zoom, a Sigma 16-28 f2.8 zoom and a Tamron 50-400 zoom. I have now used all these lenses extensively for photos and video and I am really happy with my choice. Next I will probably get either a macro lens or a wide, fast wide angle prime for astro photography.

 

[Gloor]

What do you shoot with these lenses?

I'm still on the fence what to get. The Z8 looks great and so does A7RV. On the other hand, the Aii got released recently and even though its crazy expensive people say its the best all around camera. Seeing that I'll be investing in longevity then maybe I could splurge. Alternatively, I could get A7RV now and then upgrade to new body later on? Do bodies devaluate a lot or is this a viable strategy?

Anyway, still plenty of time to decide so no rush for me. I'll take my time

I don't know if this will be of any help but I bought a Sony A7RV about 18 months ago. One reason I chose a Sony camera was for the massive selection of available lenses. I got a lot of advice from users on the DP Review forums and in the end I went with a Sony 24-70 f2.8 zoom, a Sigma 16-28 f2.8 zoom and a Tamron 50-400 zoom. I have now used all these lenses extensively for photos and video and I am really happy with my choice. Next I will probably get either a macro lens or a wide, fast wide angle prime for astro photography.

 

[Apple fanboy]

What do you shoot with these lenses?

I'm still on the fence what to get. The Z8 looks great and so does A7RV. On the other hand, the Aii got released recently and even though its crazy expensive people say its the best all around camera. Seeing that I'll be investing in longevity then maybe I could splurge. Alternatively, I could get A7RV now and then upgrade to new body later on? Do bodies devaluate a lot or is this a viable strategy?

Anyway, still plenty of time to decide so no rush for me. I'll take my time

Bodies devaluate a lot over time. Lenses not so much.

There is no bad choice to make. Just choose what works for you. A 10 year old body still outperforms a brand new iPhone.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

On the other hand, the Aii got released recently and even though its crazy expensive people say its the best all around camera.

I'd be careful about a fanboy war. There are those who consider the A1ii way overpriced in the Sony system and a bad deal in general. It certainly is comparable to a Canon R5MkII which is just under $4k, which means $2.5k cheaper which you can put into glass. Each have their pros and cons, pick your poison, you can't go wrong with either.

Do bodies devaluate a lot or is this a viable strategy?

Bodies drop massively in value as soon as a new model is announced. You buy into the lens system and then switch bodies as you go along. As long as you don't switch systems, that's the way to go.

With Sony, bit of a warning. Buy a camera for what it does right now and expect nothing else. Sony is known for not bringing new features via firmware update to their existing electronics (not just cameras). Sometimes you don't even get bug fixes, they just want you to buy a new camera. If I remember it was the A9 to A9ii which had very similar hardware and Sony refused to bring new menu system and improved autofocus to the existing model and just released a new model instead. Canon is a little better, more consistent bug fixes, new features. But Nikon is king for bringing new features to older models even years after release. Just be aware of that.

Have to say, Sony have a new 50-150 F2. With their 24-70 F2 that's a killer combo. Not cheap, but wow. Canon has a 24-70 F2, but it's heavier and I'm sure once they come out with a similar 50-180 (maybe?) F2 it will be heavier as well. Then again, 200-600 has focus issues on some bodies.
Nikon now has a f1.2 trinity setup, which is amazing.

In the end, pick the lenses you want, then make the decision on the system unless there's a feature you absolutely need. For me it's the pre-capture in RAW and worse AF in the Nikon system that breaks the deal for me. Otherwise, I'd be all over Nikon.

If you don't need those or similar features and are still considering the Z8, just keep in mind it's cheaper than both Canon and Sony for body and lenses. So you could get a Z8 now and replace it with a Z8ii when it comes out and it'd probably still be cheaper than buying a Sony and Canon now.

Decisions, decisions... I know.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I'd be careful about a fanboy war. There are those who consider the A1ii way overpriced in the Sony system and a bad deal in general. It certainly is comparable to a Canon R5MkII which is just under $4k, which means $2.5k cheaper which you can put into glass. Each have their pros and cons, pick your poison, you can't go wrong with either.

Bodies drop massively in value as soon as a new model is announced. You buy into the lens system and then switch bodies as you go along. As long as you don't switch systems, that's the way to go.

With Sony, bit of a warning. Buy a camera for what it does right now and expect nothing else. Sony is known for not bringing new features via firmware update to their existing electronics (not just cameras). Sometimes you don't even get bug fixes, they just want you to buy a new camera. If I remember it was the A9 to A9ii which had very similar hardware and Sony refused to bring new menu system and improved autofocus to the existing model and just released a new model instead. Canon is a little better, more consistent bug fixes, new features. But Nikon is king for bringing new features to older models even years after release. Just be aware of that.

Have to say, Sony have a new 50-150 F2. With their 24-70 F2 that's a killer combo. Not cheap, but wow. Canon has a 24-70 F2, but it's heavier and I'm sure once they come out with a similar 50-180 (maybe?) F2 it will be heavier as well. Then again, 200-600 has focus issues on some bodies.
Nikon now has a f1.2 trinity setup, which is amazing.

In the end, pick the lenses you want, then make the decision on the system unless there's a feature you absolutely need. For me it's the pre-capture in RAW and worse AF in the Nikon system that breaks the deal for me. Otherwise, I'd be all over Nikon.

If you don't need those or similar features and are still considering the Z8, just keep in mind it's cheaper than both Canon and Sony for body and lenses. So you could get a Z8 now and replace it with a Z8ii when it comes out and it'd probably still be cheaper than buying a Sony and Canon now.

Decisions, decisions... I know.

Pretty sure the AF on Nikon is pretty good from my experience. Some firmware updates have improved things.

I don’t think Nikon, Canon or Sony make a bad camera these days. As you say choose the lenses you want/need and pick the body that suits your needs/budget.

 

[Gloor]

Right,

one question please. Why is the new Nikon 28-70 f2 so good when you have 24-70 f2.8? Lighter and covers more range and honestly who really shoots at f2 with this lens? The depth of field is so shallow that unless you do portraits you always go to bigger number, no?

I'd be careful about a fanboy war. There are those who consider the A1ii way overpriced in the Sony system and a bad deal in general. It certainly is comparable to a Canon R5MkII which is just under $4k, which means $2.5k cheaper which you can put into glass. Each have their pros and cons, pick your poison, you can't go wrong with either.

Bodies drop massively in value as soon as a new model is announced. You buy into the lens system and then switch bodies as you go along. As long as you don't switch systems, that's the way to go.

With Sony, bit of a warning. Buy a camera for what it does right now and expect nothing else. Sony is known for not bringing new features via firmware update to their existing electronics (not just cameras). Sometimes you don't even get bug fixes, they just want you to buy a new camera. If I remember it was the A9 to A9ii which had very similar hardware and Sony refused to bring new menu system and improved autofocus to the existing model and just released a new model instead. Canon is a little better, more consistent bug fixes, new features. But Nikon is king for bringing new features to older models even years after release. Just be aware of that.

Have to say, Sony have a new 50-150 F2. With their 24-70 F2 that's a killer combo. Not cheap, but wow. Canon has a 24-70 F2, but it's heavier and I'm sure once they come out with a similar 50-180 (maybe?) F2 it will be heavier as well. Then again, 200-600 has focus issues on some bodies.
Nikon now has a f1.2 trinity setup, which is amazing.

In the end, pick the lenses you want, then make the decision on the system unless there's a feature you absolutely need. For me it's the pre-capture in RAW and worse AF in the Nikon system that breaks the deal for me. Otherwise, I'd be all over Nikon.

If you don't need those or similar features and are still considering the Z8, just keep in mind it's cheaper than both Canon and Sony for body and lenses. So you could get a Z8 now and replace it with a Z8ii when it comes out and it'd probably still be cheaper than buying a Sony and Canon now.

Decisions, decisions... I know.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Right,

one question please. Why is the new Nikon 28-70 f2 so good when you have 24-70 f2.8? Lighter and covers more range and honestly who really shoots at f2 with this lens? The depth of field is so shallow that unless you do portraits you always go to bigger number, no?

Well personally I opted for the 24-120mm f4. Because it’s a versatile focal length and weighs about a quarter of what my old 24-70mm f2.8 F-mount lens.
And yes I rarely used the lens at f 2.8.

 

[Clix Pix]

Right,

one question please. Why is the new Nikon 28-70 f2 so good when you have 24-70 f2.8? Lighter and covers more range and honestly who really shoots at f2 with this lens? The depth of field is so shallow that unless you do portraits you always go to bigger number, no?

I don't think Nikon offers a 28-70mm f/2, does it? I know Sony does and I believe Canon as well?

To answer the question about shooting at f/2......sometimes it "just works" for the type of shot one has in mind, and/or it may be necessary to have more light available and even though it doesn't seem like it would make that much difference, there is indeed enough additional light made available between f/2.0 and f/2.8 to make it worthwhile.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

To answer the question about shooting at f/2......sometimes it "just works" for the type of shot one has in mind,

Exactly.

and/or it may be necessary to have more light available and even though it doesn't seem like it would make that much difference, there is indeed enough additional light made available between f/2.0 and f/2.8 to make it worthwhile.

Actually, it (my lens allows for f/1.4) works (for me) shooting indoors (without a flash) - or, in other (natural) lowlight settings - evenings, twilights, nocturnal urban settings - with a wide angle (35mm) lens, which is what attracted me.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

Pretty sure the AF on Nikon is pretty good from my experience. Some firmware updates have improved things.

AF on Nikon is by no means bad. It's been massively improved over the years. The bird eye AF is top notch, rest is good, but not as good as Sony or Canon. I'd rank Canon over Sony, then Nikon last. There is the ongoing issue of EVF showing the correct focus point, but the actual image is not. This highly depends on type of shooting, settings and lenses used. It's been discussed over at Fred Miranda extensively and there are also YouTube reviews showing it. Jared Polin reviewed the Z6iii (and Z8 I think) and specifically showed the issue. Yes, it doesn't affect everyone, but I think one can't ignore it either. For me personally, AF alone wouldn't be enough, but the combination of pre-capture and AF when buying a new system. But that's different for everyone I guess. Neither off the top 3 make bad cameras. I'd even add Fuji to the mix, they're not bad cameras, they're actually very good. They just have horrible AF performance, which might be an issue for some, but not for others. Fuji served me really well over the past years for street photography.

 

[Apple fanboy]

AF on Nikon is by no means bad. It's been massively improved over the years. The bird eye AF is top notch, rest is good, but not as good as Sony or Canon. I'd rank Canon over Sony, then Nikon last. There is the ongoing issue of EVF showing the correct focus point, but the actual image is not. This highly depends on type of shooting, settings and lenses used. It's been discussed over at Fred Miranda extensively and there are also YouTube reviews showing it. Jared Polin reviewed the Z6iii (and Z8 I think) and specifically showed the issue. Yes, it doesn't affect everyone, but I think one can't ignore it either. For me personally, AF alone wouldn't be enough, but the combination of pre-capture and AF when buying a new system. But that's different for everyone I guess. Neither off the top 3 make bad cameras. I'd even add Fuji to the mix, they're not bad cameras, they're actually very good. They just have horrible AF performance, which might be an issue for some, but not for others. Fuji served me really well over the past years for street photography.

I shoot the Z6iii and the number of keepers I got recently shooting birds was insane. Even the peregrine falcons flying were great (when I could catch them with the lens!).
Reviewers don’t always get it right or have pure motivation.
Not saying Nikon is better than the others btw. I just think they are all perfectly capable. Knowing the correct settings to use probably makes more difference than the name on the body.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

Right,

one question please. Why is the new Nikon 28-70 f2 so good when you have 24-70 f2.8? Lighter and covers more range and honestly who really shoots at f2 with this lens? The depth of field is so shallow that unless you do portraits you always go to bigger number, no?

Nikon has no 28-70 f2, they have a f1.2 trinity (35, 50 and 85mm primes) with the S-line.
Sony and Canon have 24-70 f2 and Sony now a 50-150 f2. If this is useful depends on your style of shooting. The 50-150 convers the 50, 85 and 135 range of primes, yet being more flexible as it's a zoom. Now this is really interesting, when you have the f1.8 primes. The difference between 1.8 and 2 is pretty much non existent. I think the noticeable step is going from 1.4 to 1.8. So unless you're using 1.2 or 1.4 primes, you have one f2 lens that can replace three 1.8 primes. Of course, if 2.8 works for you, that's not an issue. I find fast primes still useful, for shallow depth of field and bokeh. And then there's shooting indoors or at night, which 1.2 and 1.4 can come in handy. But what works for one, doesn't necessarily mean it works for everyone. For most situations you'll probably be totally fine with a f2.8.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

Not saying Nikon is better than the others btw. I just think they are all perfectly capable. Knowing the correct settings to use probably makes more difference than the name on the body.

Maybe yes. I'm an amateur, but I seen the problem. Could be me, I don't know. But when I pick a camera, the one that helps me most to get good images is the one I'd normally prefer. Yes, I could invest much time into system A to fully learn a system and then for every situation change the settings and it might perfectly work. For me, as an amateur, the question is why, when system B works perfectly without fiddling around with the settings.

One thing I keep scratching my head about with the AF of Nikon... Again, this is highly dependent on the situation and might not show up most of the time, but why is the AF in the EVF shown in the right spot, when in the actual image it's not focused on the subject that the AF in the EVF shows?
Have a look at this:

And yes, call him a Sony/Canon fanboy, but he has a point there. The AF is shown on the subject as it should be, yet it's back focusing in the actual image. Bug? Intentional? Limitation of the system? I don't know. Should not be the case. Pretty sure once the Z9ii comes out, it won't be there anymore and then come to other new bodies as well.

But again, this is only really relevant when buying into a new system. No system is perfect, they all have their quirks.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Well I've not seen that, but then I don't shoot a Z8. Maybe it's a particular of the lens (again I don't have the 14-24) or maybe he had a pre production copy.
I can only report what I have seen with my Z6iii. The focus is what I expect in the real world shooting fast moving subjects. I don't shoot people so maybe that is another difference.

 

[mollyc]

Right,

one question please. Why is the new Nikon 28-70 f2 so good when you have 24-70 f2.8? Lighter and covers more range and honestly who really shoots at f2 with this lens? The depth of field is so shallow that unless you do portraits you always go to bigger number, no?

The Nikon 28-70 is an f/2.8 lens, but it's a narrower focal range (you lose the 24-27mm) and also the lens quality isn't as high as the 24-70 lenses (there's an f/2.8 and f/4, both in the S line, which are the top of the line lenses for Nikon). How much practical difference that makes will depend on the photographer.

Personally, I shoot almost every image I take at f/4 or wider. If I have a lens that opens to 1.8, I'll shoot there or f/2. I have a couple of lenses where this does not hold true, just because at the widest apertures they get a little glowy. But I rarely stop down beyond f/4. The notable exception to this is shooting film where I might need a narrower aperture to compensate for a fixed ISO and a slower max shutter speed.

Maybe yes. I'm an amateur, but I seen the problem. Could be me, I don't know. But when I pick a camera, the one that helps me most to get good images is the one I'd normally prefer. Yes, I could invest much time into system A to fully learn a system and then for every situation change the settings and it might perfectly work. For me, as an amateur, the question is why, when system B works perfectly without fiddling around with the settings.

One thing I keep scratching my head about with the AF of Nikon... Again, this is highly dependent on the situation and might not show up most of the time, but why is the AF in the EVF shown in the right spot, when in the actual image it's not focused on the subject that the AF in the EVF shows?
Have a look at this:

And yes, call him a Sony/Canon fanboy, but he has a point there. The AF is shown on the subject as it should be, yet it's back focusing in the actual image. Bug? Intentional? Limitation of the system? I don't know. Should not be the case. Pretty sure once the Z9ii comes out, it won't be there anymore and then come to other new bodies as well.

But again, this is only really relevant when buying into a new system. No system is perfect, they all have their quirks.

I'm still using a Nikon Z6 and Z6ii for anything fast paced. They both keep up just fine with high school sports and far surpass the D800 they replaced.. I haven't watched the video in question as I'm not in the market for a new body, but a) Fro notably doesn't like Nikon and b) reviewers are going to be trying to find areas where things don't work. Even a video that is by an ambassador is going to push the gear to the limit to try and find areas that need improvement (this way they can sell the next model down the line). The vast majority of hobby shooters are never going to run into major issues with any of the three-four major camera makers. Especially if you are just shooting family/kid/vacation stuff. If you really need bird or other cutting-edge AF or shoot professionally, you're going to know what you need without watching a video from Fro Knows.

Again, go to a store, play with them in hand, figure out which one is most comfortable and fits your budget, and just buy it and start using it. No one makes a bad camera right now.

 

[Apple fanboy]

No one makes a bad camera right now.

True. They are all good. They are all better than what we were buying 10 years ago. Want better pictures? Just get out there and shoot more. That's what I need to do more of this year.

Modern cameras+knowing your setting+practise=quality images. If not then photography isn't for you.

 

[Gloor]

Sorry, meant SONY. Sorry for the typo confusion.

True, f2 gives you more light but then you also 'cripple' yourself to shots that will have subject really separated from the background which was kinda my question as to why would one want to do that as the depth is very narrow.

I have Nikon 85 1.8 Prime and even though its a great lens I still hardly ever shoot at 1.8 as everything is blurred except few cms (depending on distance of course). Very useful for very specific portraits but thats about it.

Which is why I wondered and wanted to learn more. But I think I'll go for the classic 24-70 2.8 (or maybe even 4 as its way cheaper). Budget will dictate of course but I'm leaning towards 2.8.

Technically, this year we should get Sony A7Rvi as they release them every 2.5 years and last one was 2022 so I guess I'll wait towards the end of the year and see if I buy the discounted v or the new vi. Thats probably a good strategy

I don't think Nikon offers a 28-70mm f/2, does it? I know Sony does and I believe Canon as well?

To answer the question about shooting at f/2......sometimes it "just works" for the type of shot one has in mind, and/or it may be necessary to have more light available and even though it doesn't seem like it would make that much difference, there is indeed enough additional light made available between f/2.0 and f/2.8 to make it worthwhile.

Nikon has no 28-70 f2, they have a f1.2 trinity (35, 50 and 85mm primes) with the S-line.
Sony and Canon have 24-70 f2 and Sony now a 50-150 f2. If this is useful depends on your style of shooting. The 50-150 convers the 50, 85 and 135 range of primes, yet being more flexible as it's a zoom. Now this is really interesting, when you have the f1.8 primes. The difference between 1.8 and 2 is pretty much non existent. I think the noticeable step is going from 1.4 to 1.8. So unless you're using 1.2 or 1.4 primes, you have one f2 lens that can replace three 1.8 primes. Of course, if 2.8 works for you, that's not an issue. I find fast primes still useful, for shallow depth of field and bokeh. And then there's shooting indoors or at night, which 1.2 and 1.4 can come in handy. But what works for one, doesn't necessarily mean it works for everyone. For most situations you'll probably be totally fine with a f2.8.

The Nikon 28-70 is an f/2.8 lens, but it's a narrower focal range (you lose the 24-27mm) and also the lens quality isn't as high as the 24-70 lenses (there's an f/2.8 and f/4, both in the S line, which are the top of the line lenses for Nikon). How much practical difference that makes will depend on the photographer.

Personally, I shoot almost every image I take at f/4 or wider. If I have a lens that opens to 1.8, I'll shoot there or f/2. I have a couple of lenses where this does not hold true, just because at the widest apertures they get a little glowy. But I rarely stop down beyond f/4. The notable exception to this is shooting film where I might need a narrower aperture to compensate for a fixed ISO and a slower max shutter speed.




I'm still using a Nikon Z6 and Z6ii for anything fast paced. They both keep up just fine with high school sports and far surpass the D800 they replaced.. I haven't watched the video in question as I'm not in the market for a new body, but a) Fro notably doesn't like Nikon and b) reviewers are going to be trying to find areas where things don't work. Even a video that is by an ambassador is going to push the gear to the limit to try and find areas that need improvement (this way they can sell the next model down the line). The vast majority of hobby shooters are never going to run into major issues with any of the three-four major camera makers. Especially if you are just shooting family/kid/vacation stuff. If you really need bird or other cutting-edge AF or shoot professionally, you're going to know what you need without watching a video from Fro Knows.

Again, go to a store, play with them in hand, figure out which one is most comfortable and fits your budget, and just buy it and start using it. No one makes a bad camera right now.

 

[dimme]

Modern cameras+knowing your setting+practise=quality images. If not then photography isn't for you.

Best advice in this thread.

 

[mollyc]

I have Nikon 85 1.8 Prime and even though its a great lens I still hardly ever shoot at 1.8 as everything is blurred except few cms (depending on distance of course). Very useful for very specific portraits but thats about it.

In modern photography, aperture is largely a creative choice; high ISO today is something unimaginable even from 15 years ago, so many people can shoot at f/4 - f/8 at night with decent results. In the film and early digital days, if you needed more light at a fixed or ceilinged ISO, then you needed a fast lens.

But again, I often shoot wide open. I don't currently have a 24-70 f/2.8 lens because I got the f/4 kit lens with my first Z camera and I have never felt the need to update it. But it's the slowest lens in my kit, and as I mentioned above, I typically shoot around f/2-4 almost exclusively.

But the thing about a lens that opens wide is that you don't have to use it there. Just because your 85 opens to 1.8, you can still use it at f/8 or f/11; and then the bonus is that if you find yourself really wanting a narrow depth of focus you still have the ability to do so. But if you have an 85mm lens that only opens to f/5.6 (I have no idea if a lens like this exists, just as a talking point), then you can never open up if you need or want to. The disadvantages to a lens with a wide max aperture are price and size, not optical end results. The reverse is not true. So an f/1.8 lens is useful in all cases, just use whatever aperture you desire, but a narrow aperture lens is not useful in some specific cases.

Also, keep in mind, that the amount of depth of field of any one lens has much more to do with the distances between subject and camera and subject and background than actual aperture. F/11 on a macro lens is still often too shallow to get all of a subject in focus.

 

[Clix Pix]

Sorry, meant SONY. Sorry for the typo confusion.

True, f2 gives you more light but then you also 'cripple' yourself to shots that will have subject really separated from the background which was kinda my question as to why would one want to do that as the depth is very narrow.

I have Nikon 85 1.8 Prime and even though its a great lens I still hardly ever shoot at 1.8 as everything is blurred except few cms (depending on distance of course). Very useful for very specific portraits but thats about it.

Which is why I wondered and wanted to learn more. But I think I'll go for the classic 24-70 2.8 (or maybe even 4 as its way cheaper). Budget will dictate of course but I'm leaning towards 2.8.

Technically, this year we should get Sony A7Rvi as they release them every 2.5 years and last one was 2022 so I guess I'll wait towards the end of the year and see if I buy the discounted v or the new vi. Thats probably a good strategy

The thing is, some of us WANT to shoot images where the subject is separated from its background! This goes beyond portrait photography, too, actually.

Gloor, have you looked in on the POTD (Photo of the Day) thread here on MR? You'll see a variety of images shot by different photographers each taking his or her own approach.....

Many people prefer landscape photography or architecture photography or sports or animal/wildlife photography, all situations in which, yes, sharpness of the image and its foreground and background are usually desirable, but even then, not always. Also in specific scenarios such as photojournalism or forensic photography, absolutely accurate documentation of the scene is required. At other times and situations, though, it is not quite so desirable to have everything sharp all the way through the image, as often backgrounds or foregrounds can be rather distracting and add visual clutter to an image. What the photographer him/herself wants to achieve with a specific image is very, very important. Why are they taking the photograph in the first place?

A lot depends upon what the photographer intends when he/she is out there with the camera and lens(es). That's one of the benefits and beauties of having interchangeable lenses at our disposal. We can each take our own approach to a particular subject in our own way. Some choose to go for the "dreamy" surrounding background when photographing people, flowers, insects or objects, which can result in shooting the lens wide-open with very, very shallow DOF. (And, yes, shooting an image with a very, very shallow/narrow DOF is challenging, but so rewarding when the image comes out in the way that one had been striving to achieve!). Anyone who has shot with an aperture of f/1.2 or even f/1.0 will know what I mean.

Photography is rather uniquely based upon both art and science/technology. That is why we can have such varied experiences when viewing others' work or creating our own. Many photographers happen to have a preference for and for want of a better or possibly more accurate word, "artistic" approach to their subjects in sharp contrast to a "documentary" or "forensic" approach.

The good news here is that, yes, all interpretations of any given subject when it comes to photography are equally valid. Each of us who picks up a camera and sticks a lens on it will have either (possibly an) employer or situation-related mandate or are free to go with our own ideas and choose to use our cameras in ways which reflect our own personal vision at a given time. That's what makes photography so much fun and also so challenging!

 

[richardallan]

What do you shoot with these lenses?

I'm still on the fence what to get. The Z8 looks great and so does A7RV. On the other hand, the Aii got released recently and even though its crazy expensive people say its the best all around camera. Seeing that I'll be investing in longevity then maybe I could splurge. Alternatively, I could get A7RV now and then upgrade to new body later on? Do bodies devaluate a lot or is this a viable strategy?

Anyway, still plenty of time to decide so no rush for me. I'll take my time

The A1ii is twice the price of the A7RV here. Even when I bought the A7RV the A1 was a lot more expensive and the A7RV had some advantages. I got a lens for the difference in price. Anyway, I don't really need the speed of the A1.

As for what I shoot, it's pretty varied. From travel to landscapes and cityscapes, birds, planes, trains, nature, astro. I hope this answers some of your questions.

As far as Nikons and Canons go, I've never really liked either of them. One of the main reasons I chose Sony is that I have had an RX100iii for ten years and it is such a brilliant little camera. In fact, about 9 months ago, I bought a very slightly used RX100vii. I am an exponent of ETTR and being able to use Zebras for correct exposure is an absolute game changer in my opinion.