The decline and fall of Reflex.

[Ron Texas]

Totally agree. The step from the D200 (2007) to the D800 (2012) was a major one, with twice the resolution and 5 times higher S/N. All newer models offer a much lower advancement in image quality (IQ), and one probably needs better lenses to really see better IQ in ones pics.

I can tell you going from a D800 to the D850 was nothing special. Some reviewer took a DSLR and matching mirrorless camera out shooting for a week. His conclusion was there was no difference in the results. Commercial factors are driving the change. It's less expensive to manufacture an EVF than an OVF and it gives the opportunity to sell more lenses. Used F-Mount lenses are ungodly cheap now.

 

[LTig]

I can tell you going from a D800 to the D850 was nothing special. Some reviewer took a DSLR and matching mirrorless camera out shooting for a week. His conclusion was there was no difference in the results.

This is exactly what I expected.

Used F-Mount lenses are ungodly cheap now.

Good to know, thanks!

 

[Chromatischism]

The Nikon Z 8 is a beast but I probably won't spring for it just due to its size.

Waiting to see the next iterations of the 6 and 7.

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

It's funny. I replaced my Sony Nex 6 with a Nikon APS-C DSLR a few years back. I may have made a mistake.

 

[nerdstrike]

It's funny. I replaced my Sony Nex 6 with a Nikon APS-C DSLR a few years back. I may have made a mistake.

Pah, it's not a mistake if you can take good photos and the camera isn't stopping you. My D5100 is still working perfectly well, even if it is a bit sucky in tricky conditions. You can get some quality used APS-C glass for cheap of late, like the once excellent 16-85mm for a mere £122. Hmm...

 

[JeffS7444]

I don't remember if I shared this link previously, but here's some high-quality geekery for Nikon fans:

 

[Roland68]

Pah, it's not a mistake if you can take good photos and the camera isn't stopping you. My D5100 is still working perfectly well, even if it is a bit sucky in tricky conditions. You can get some quality used APS-C glass for cheap of late, like the once excellent 16-85mm for a mere £122. Hmm...

Unfortunately, "once excellent" gets to the heart of the matter.
The resolution of the D5100 is already clearly cut by this lens, higher resolutions are pointless. Unfortunately, this applies to many of the older lenses.

 

[Newman]

The resolution of the D5100 is already clearly cut by this lens, higher resolutions are pointless. Unfortunately, this applies to many of the older lenses.

That is actually a misconception. If you take a not-great lens and put it on a higher MP sensor, the achievable resolution always goes up.

Cheers

 

[LTig]

That is actually a misconception. If you take a not-great lens and put it on a higher MP sensor, the achievable resolution always goes up.

... but only marginal.

 

[Roland68]

That is actually a misconception. If you take a not-great lens and put it on a higher MP sensor, the achievable resolution always goes up.

Cheers

You're basically right, but if such a lens reduces a 16MP camera to 12MP, it reduces 24MP to 16MP.
This is also the experience from several hundred lens tests.
But pictures probably say more.

The Nikon lens does not get more out of the 24MP of the D7100 than a 16MP MFT camera. That doesn't get any better with the D5100.
The Sigma then shows what the D7100 can do.

 

[BDWoody]

I can tell you going from a D800 to the D850 was nothing special. Some reviewer took a DSLR and matching mirrorless camera out shooting for a week. His conclusion was there was no difference in the results. Commercial factors are driving the change. It's less expensive to manufacture an EVF than an OVF and it gives the opportunity to sell more lenses. Used F-Mount lenses are ungodly cheap now.

I went from the D200 which I used for many years to the D750, and that was a massive jump in every way. I don't have as many lenses as some, but I'm in no rush to trade it all in.

I also do a fair bit of low light shooting, and I find my D750 seems a bit easier to see what's happening and a little faster on the AF than with the few mirrorless cameras I've played with briefly, but I may just need more time to get comfortable. Either way, I'm in no rush, and don't feel like I'm missing out on much.

It is definitely a good time to buy F-mount lenses.

 

[Newman]

You're basically right, but if such a lens reduces a 16MP camera to 12MP, it reduces 24MP to 16MP.

Well the main thing is that you agree with me, that you were wrong to write, "The resolution of the D5100 is already clearly cut by this lens, higher resolutions are pointless."

 

[Roland68]

Well the main thing is that you agree with me, that you were wrong to write, "The resolution of the D5100 is already clearly cut by this lens, higher resolutions are pointless."

You misunderstood me there.
With a higher MP of the sensor, the loss of resolution through such a lens increases disproportionately. In this case, at least 1/3 of the imaging performance of the sensor is gone. But also 50% or even 70% loss of resolution is not uncommon.
If you think about the hype that has been made about every MP in the last few decades...
However, almost all lenses that came onto the market before 2012 cannot transfer the current resolutions. And the two major camera manufacturers in particular are still lagging behind.

If it's just about collecting old glass for whatever reason, that's totally fine. For a long time I myself collected and adapted all the great old lenses from Zeiss, Leica, Leitz, etc., in the firm belief that one could take special pictures with them and that these lenses have a special flair.
But that's just as superstition and myth as many things in the hi-fi sector, with the new lenses you can take just as great or even better pictures.

 

[Newman]

Totally agree with everything in your post above; my only objection was to your use of the word 'pointless', as if the weakest-link lens constrains all MP sensors to the same image quality. It isn't pointless if you can get some benefit from the same lens with more sensor MP.

But I fully agree that matching a better sensor to a better lens is the smartest choice.

However, consider my wife's insistence on an 18-300mm lens, because she hates to change lenses. A higher-res sensor isn't "pointless" for her, because it will lead to an improvement in image quality. In fact, maybe it's even more important in her situation, because the lens's limits mean that image quality might be marginal, so any improvement is worthwhile.

cheers

 

[Ron Texas]

I went from the D200 which I used for many years to the D750, and that was a massive jump in every way. I don't have as many lenses as some, but I'm in no rush to trade it all in.

I also do a fair bit of low light shooting, and I find my D750 seems a bit easier to see what's happening and a little faster on the AF than with the few mirrorless cameras I've played with briefly, but I may just need more time to get comfortable. Either way, I'm in no rush, and don't feel like I'm missing out on much.

It is definitely a good time to buy F-mount lenses.

Glad you love your D750. Us Nikon guys need to stick together.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don't know what those Nikon guys are up to, but I know us Canon guys don't like it. {former Nikon guy}

 

[Chromatischism]

However, almost all lenses that came onto the market before 2012 cannot transfer the current resolutions. And the two major camera manufacturers in particular are still lagging behind.

Which ones?

 

[Roland68]

Which ones?

Look a post above yours.

 

[Roland68]

Totally agree with everything in your post above; my only objection was to your use of the word 'pointless', as if the weakest-link lens constrains all MP sensors to the same image quality. It isn't pointless if you can get some benefit from the same lens with more sensor MP.

But I fully agree that matching a better sensor to a better lens is the smartest choice.

However, consider my wife's insistence on an 18-300mm lens, because she hates to change lenses. A higher-res sensor isn't "pointless" for her, because it will lead to an improvement in image quality. In fact, maybe it's even more important in her situation, because the lens's limits mean that image quality might be marginal, so any improvement is worthwhile.

cheers

You're giving me new ammunition on purpose, right?
Now that we're talking about soup zooms, things get twice as bad.
Soup zooms are construction-related No imaging/resolution wonders. Even one of the best and most expensive on the market, the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 G ED VR easily cuts the 36MP of the large FF sensor in half, or more. With the other soup zooms, especially the cheap ones, it's even worse.
But the knockout are the fuzzier free-hand images at higher resolutions, which you can tell even with VR at 50mm. Of course, increasing focal length and decreasing light make this worse and motion blur also increases.

My recommendation is an Olympus from E-M5 MKII with the powerful sensor IS and the 14-150mm (28-300mm).
This lens also increases significantly with a higher resolution (see also the difference between 16MP and 36MP) and saves more than half = 1kg in weight. There's no need to talk about the size difference. At the latest with free-hand shots with 300mm, everyone with a lens stabilizer is jealous...
The other soup zooms on the market, especially in the APS-C range, don't stand a chance against the imaging performance of the Olympus combo, regardless of the MP number.

 

[Newman]

I have the E-M5 II and the 14-140mm ‘PanaLeica’, but still…much preferred the 12-40PRO Oly and 100-300 Pana combo.

My recommendation is an Olympus from E-M5 MKII with the powerful sensor IS and the 14-150mm (28-300mm).
This lens also increases significantly with a higher resolution (see also the difference between 16MP and 36MP) and saves more than half = 1kg in weight. There's no need to talk about the size difference. At the latest with free-hand shots with 300mm, everyone with a lens stabilizer is jealous...
The other soup zooms on the market, especially in the APS-C range, don't stand a chance against the imaging performance of the Olympus combo, regardless of the MP number.

Below is the acutance map of your E-M5 and Olympus 14-150 combo at 150mm (300mm-e)

© DxOMark

Below is the acutance map of my E-M5 and my Panasonic 14-140 combo at 140mm (280mm-e)

© DxOMark

And finally, below is the acutance map of my wife’s APS_C D5600 and “worst of the worst soup zoom” 18-300mm combo at 200mm (300mm-e)

© DxOMark

…which you say “doesn’t stand a chance”.

Personally, I’m happy if she’s happy. And if you’re happy with your combo, then I’m happy for you too.

cheers