question......superzooms vs mirrorless

[Gianna'sPapa]

As I have been considering upgrading my own lenses, I was actually thinking about that. For a non-professional, is a 2.8 lens really as important as it used to be?
Sure, 5 years ago, I might use that 2.8 lens to get a great shot at ISO 100-200.

But if I can shoot a sharp/low noise shot at 400-800 or even 1600+, then do I really need a $2,000 2.8 lens as opposed to a $200 70-200/4.5-5.6 lens?

Because I shoot Sony, I'm considering "upgrading" really cheaply -- Getting a 70-210/constant F4 old used Minolta lens, really cheaply. (under $200) So how much am I really losing, if I'm only losing 1 F-stop? Is it really worth it for me, as an amateur, to spend 10 times more money, for 1 F-stop? With a modern dSLR with higher usable ISO, won't the cheap lens produce pretty similar shooting speed, just at a slightly higher ISO?

I'm just brain storming. I want sharper better pictures, and trying to figure out the best ways to make do, without spending extravagantly.
For example..... I've also considered whether to upgrade the basic "kit lens" -
Tamron has a well reviewed 17-50/constant 2.8, which you can get for $400-$500.
But you can also get a Carl Zeiss 18-85/3.5-4.5 for $600 to $700.
Would the Zeiss give better shots because of it's more presumably more advanced coatings and optics, or would the extra F-stop on the Tamron be more beneficial and lead to better results?

I know others have hit on this, but I don't think anyone has addressed the actual mechanical difference.

What makes a DSLR a DSLR is not the sensor, nor the ability to change lenses. It's the fact that it is a single lens reflex camera. That means you look through an optical viewfinder and through a series of mirrors or prisms you then see literally though the lens. You'll see that abbreviated TTL.

With a mirrorless camera they've taken the SLR out and have no mirror or prisms to project the image into an optical viewfinder. They either use an electronic viewfinder or the LCD screen on the back. This lets them make a smaller camera and it can use physically smaller lenses to get the same equivalent focal lengths.



This goes a little OT, but in my opinion no, having an f/2.8 lens isn't as much a necessity as it used to be in terms of light gathering ability. But a lot of that depends on how you shoot. Digital has passed the ISO capabilities of 35mm film, and with the low noise that cameras have today I just don't see a fast zoom as high of a priority for myself when put in terms of just speed. But what I do see as a huge advantage these days is sharper lenses with better contrast. Those things will decrease the appearance of noise and make it easier to manage noise in editing. And to get that you often end up with the faster zoom lenses. Then there's the creative consideration of aperture's affect on depth of field. Another factor is the issue of camera resolution outpacing the resolving power of the lens, and that's where a lot of the lower end zooms have been coming up short, especially older models (Canon 75-300 comes to mind here). We could get away with a softer image with 35mm film than we can with digital simply because that 35mm frame didn't have the resolution that a 15 or 20 MP camera does and that's another reason I might go for the higher end lens, which just happens to also be the faster zoom much of the time.

It's very off topic, but that is very enlightening. Still leaves me guessing though, as to which lenses would be the best bang for buck upgrades.

Maybe I'll save up my pennies for a nice Zeiss kit lens, while making do with a cheaper zoom lens.

This isn't what the OP is asking about, but does bring up and interesting thought. There is another variable and that is who/what you're shooting the image for. The majority of my images end up on websites. Every once in awhile, one may be picked up for a magazine, brochure, etc. I have seen some dotcom photographers shooting with some amateur equipment because they don't need the extra resolution of enthusiast/pro equipment for their purposes. The pros that I shoot with require that extra resolution because they never know who is going to see/want an image that may bring them thousands of $! When the pros I work with show up at a racetrack with $10,000-$15,000 (and sometimes more) worth of equipment its because that is necessary for them to do their jobs. Many of us don't need or require that level of equipment. That is a choice we all make.

 

[havoc315]

This isn't what the OP is asking about, but does bring up and interesting thought. There is another variable and that is who/what you're shooting the image for. The majority of my images end up on websites. Every once in awhile, one may be picked up for a magazine, brochure, etc. I have seen some dotcom photographers shooting with some amateur equipment because they don't need the extra resolution of enthusiast/pro equipment for their purposes. The pros that I shoot with require that extra resolution because they never know who is going to see/want an image that may bring them thousands of $! When the pros I work with show up at a racetrack with $10,000-$15,000 (and sometimes more) worth of equipment its because that is necessary for them to do their jobs. Many of us don't need or require that level of equipment. That is a choice we all make.

All precisely true. I recognize there is a value in that ultra expensive equipment. And for truly professional pictures, you may need that level of equipment.
But it's the law of diminishing returns... especially in the hands of an amateur, how much extra quality are you getting, for how much more money.
While it's certainly somewhat subjective ---
For example -- If you could get a "good" 8X10 image using a cheap lens, at ISO of 1600, with a bit of noise in the shadows... With a $200 lens..

And an upgrade to a $2000 lens would let you get a great image that you can blow up to post-size, noise free at 400 ISO... Is it worth the extra money?

It's been very hard for me to judge which lenses are "worth it."

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

All precisely true. I recognize there is a value in that ultra expensive equipment. And for truly professional pictures, you may need that level of equipment.
But it's the law of diminishing returns... especially in the hands of an amateur, how much extra quality are you getting, for how much more money.
While it's certainly somewhat subjective ---
For example -- If you could get a "good" 8X10 image using a cheap lens, at ISO of 1600, with a bit of noise in the shadows... With a $200 lens..

And an upgrade to a $2000 lens would let you get a great image that you can blow up to post-size, noise free at 400 ISO... Is it worth the extra money?

It's been very hard for me to judge which lenses are "worth it."

Trust me, its something we all struggle with, "when is enough, enough" !!

 

[boBQuincy]

Trust me, its something we all struggle with, "when is enough, enough" !!

If a little is good and more is better then too much is just right!
Too much light is kind of like too much fun, very rare. If we have an f/2.8 lens we will find occasions to use it wide open. And then wish for an f/2.0.

 

[npmommie]

I apologize and I actually thought about it but couldn't figure it out. I just wasn't sure. Since you aren't overly invested in lenses, you have no problem going forward with whatever system and really haven't lost anything. You probably have the DA 3.5-5.6 18-55mm AL. There have been three more iterations of that lens since (DA 18-55 AL II, DAL and the DA AL WR). The optics on all are similar with some saying the last three identical. They are not bad consumer lenses. Even though the K100D Super is somewhat dated doesn't mean that it won't take good pictures. Being a 6mp camera will only mean that you may not be able to blow the image up to wall size . Cameras are very personal pieces of equipment and each photgrapher should choose which way they want to go. For me they are a necessity because of what I shoot. I'm not happy unless I have a battery grip and a constant aperture zoom lens on each camera hanging off each shoulder! DSLR's are not for everyone. If you haven't already, get to a store and try it out. That is the best way to make your final decision. Good luck!!

no worries
thanks for all the good info. I am off later to check out some cameras in person. I am thinking mirrorless will fit what I am looking for.
will report back when I make the jump, LOL