Up until recently you were pretty much forced to look for a very expensive camera if you wanted 10 frames per second performance in a camera body that was designed for harsh environments. The Nikon D4 comes to mind, but it's at around $6,000 for the body alone. It is also huge and weighs a ton.

There is however a newcomer at less than 1/4 of that price, the Olympus OM-D E-M1. Take a look at it if you want a lighter camera but with all the attributes of the highest-end pro bodies.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2013...-om-d-e-m1-review-1/

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
Up until recently you were pretty much forced to look for a very expensive camera if you wanted 10 frames per second performance in a camera body that was designed for harsh environments. The Nikon D4 comes to mind, but it's at around $6,000 for the body alone. It is also huge and weighs a ton.

There is however a newcomer at less than 1/4 of that price, the Olympus OM-D E-M1. Take a look at it if you want a lighter camera but with all the attributes of the highest-end pro bodies.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2013…-om-d-e-m1-review-1/

While I don't like swivel screens, the camera should be a great addition to photographers who shoot in the rain.

While the cameras I use are weather-sealed I would not trust the seals to hold under heavy rain. However, I use them in Alaska, sometimes at temperatures around -30 degrees F and colder without any issues, except for the batteries losing capacity. But I usually have another warm battery in my pocket near my skin. Once the batteries warm-up they sort of "wake-up" from their deep-freeze state and I can keep on shooting.

While the OM-D is obviously an excellent camera, for many of us these decisions are made by our current lens inventory. Currently the D2 XS is my camera of choice since it supports the format with the multiplier 1.5 X.

What has my attention, however is the Hasselblad D series at about 31 megapixels. I previously had a film series system and I've always wanted to back to that.

I'm hoping to find a decent used camera kit, to match with my I7 computer, which has a 3 TB high-speed disk and a massive amount of RAM. I believe this is necessary to manipulate both large picture files and video files.

Another note with regards to heavy D series cameras is that I cannot bring myself to get comfortable with looking at a screen on a sunny day as compared to the normal viewfinder window. The window also allows for accurate manual focus which I prefer when shooting quality images.

The camera companies are too quick in my view to eliminate some valuable features for whatever reason. I would never spend more than pocket change for a non-mirror camera.

There are a few issues here for discussion and I would be interested in your responses.

If you've got the computing power and are looking at high megapixel cameras, why not the Nikon D800e? You would retain lens interchangeability and have the highest resolving FX format camera that exists (at least for the time being).

I'm not yet an habitual tripod carrier and doubt I can hold a camera steady enough to get the full benefit of the D800e. I also don't print enough to take advantage of the high megapixels.

To me lens selection is a lot more important than a camera body. The best lenses is where the money is at. A body that's the top of the line this year is old technology the following year.

Any of the top of the like Canon or Nikon camera should be plenty for what you want to do. Just keep in mind that the lens lineup will keep with the the overcharging technological advances for years to come.

quote:

Originally posted by DMCI*:
Another note with regards to heavy D series cameras is that I cannot bring myself to get comfortable with looking at a screen on a sunny day as compared to the normal viewfinder window. The window also allows for accurate manual focus which I prefer when shooting quality images.

This is not quite true on Nikon cameras. Critical focusing is better achieved in Live View on the LCD screen on the back of the camera. Put the camera in Live View, hit the magnifying button a few times to blow up the image and place the focusing square on the critical part of the image, then focus. Focusing directly on the sensor ensures accurate focusing, while an image which appears to be correctly focused on the focusing screen (after reflection by the mirror) may not be perfectly focused on the sensor, whether manually focused or with AF. This however really requires the camera be on a good tripod.

High end Nikon cameras have a method for "fine-tuning" the camera body to each lens to compensate for the focusing errors caused by a mirror or any other manufacturing tolerances. On both my D7000 and my D700 I fine tune AF for each lens. Zoom lenses are a pain in this respect, since there is always a little bit of focus shift as you change focal length, and sometimes it affects critical focus at large apertures, requiring an "averaging" approach to AF fine-tuning.

Since I hand-hold for almost all of my photography I rarely use the Live View focusing approach. Macro photographers use the Live View focusing method almost 100% of the time. In a sense, it is like old-fashioned view cameras where you focused on the camera back, wearing a hood over your head to avoid having the sun reflect of the focusing screen. But it is the best method for critical focusing on a digital camera that has Live View. The little green light in the viewfinder which confirms focus in reality offers a fairly wide range, not critical focus, and it takes its readings off the focusing screen, not the sensor.

I do however use my old Nikkor Ais manual focus lenses fairly regularly. Focusing screens on digital cameras are not conceived for this and Nikon does not offer split-image replacement screens for their digital cameras. I replaced the focusing screens on the D700 and D7000 with KatzEye split-image focusing screens. Not only do I have the split-image for accurate manual focusing but they are also brighter, with more contrast, for easier focusing with both fast and slow lenses.

The irony of an advanced digital camera like the D800e is that you have to use old fashioned methods to get the most out of it: focusing directly on the sensor, no camera shake (very good tripod) but you really need modern and expensive lenses conceived for the new high resolution sensors. This camera body quickly reveals the optical flaws in less than stellar lenses. Since most of the time I'm not hauling around a tripod and I don't (yet) have the optimum lenses for it, I probably won't buy it.

Most cameras are the same in regards to focusing. You can use LiveView for more accurate focus. But accurate focus is also easily achieved by looking through the viewfinder, specially if sunlight is reflected on the screen in the middle of the day. In this case I always use the viewfinder.

Again, Nikon, Canon, Sony, and other companies offer cameras with similar features, and these features change from model to model each year. Soon there will be another Nikon camera replacing the D800, and a Canon camera replacing the 5D III, and so on….

In regards to vintage lenses, I use several on my Canon cameras, including some Nikkor ones (can't afford Zeiss lenses, however, but would love to have a 21mm Distagon T* ZE prime to use on a FF body).

Something else: The Sony a7R will probably put some stiff competition to Canon and Nikon, and you can use a lot of vintage lenses with it.

But competition is not a bad thing, although it will take a share of the Nikon market, since Nikon uses the Sony sensor:
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2...camera-year-sony-a7r