oblisk

Work/Short Trip Loadout:

D800
Nikon 85m/1.8
Sigma 35mm/1.4


Longer Trip:

D800
Sigma 35mm/1.4
Nikon 50mm/1.4
Nikon 70-200mm/2.8


If trip is for photography and i feel secure with the accommodation; I'll bring my full load-out including film.

Botts

My camera bags are in bold. All but the computrekker are cabin friendly.

Work / short-trip (without animals/sports):Mid-weight package (including animals/sports):Photography (Heavy Package) Trip:

Botts

I use the A2691 from Benro, way more substantial and stiffer than the MeFoto, but still works in a backpack. If I were to buy it again, I'd buy the one with 4 leg sections instead of 5 though. It's the A2682, 4cm longer though. The A2691 is 42cm folded.

They also offer it in carbon fiber if you prefer lighter.

jpark1982

Right now I'm using the NEX-6 with the Zeiss 24 f/1.8 and love it. I also have the 18-55 kit lens but don't use that. The Zeiss makes even everyday pictures I take around the house just light up.

Before I settled on the NEX-6 I went through a ton of cameras in a short time. I started with the Nikon D600 directly off pre-order which was very nice but had the dust/oil issue that plagued the first batch. Also though if I'm spending $2,200 on a full frame, why not spend some more and get the big daddy, the 5DMkIII. Took that up for a weekend trip to Boston armed with the 24-105, GPS receiver, etc. After that weekend trip my wrist was sore with the weight of the full frame and the IQ wasn't what I was expecting from a close to $3,700 setup. Sure with proper RAW editing it would be better but I had higher expectations.

It was at that point that I started to look at mirror less and micro 4/3's. I actually had the Canon EOS-M on preorder but I had a weekend trip coming up so I got the NEX-6 since the 7 at that point was almost a year old and I heard rumors of a 7 replacement forthcoming.

So I'm pretty happy with the 6 but ill definitely look at the 7 replacement when it comes out later this summer/fall.

cronin85

Is it worth getting Sony RX100 if I have Canon S95?

LufthansaFlyer

doubling MegaPixels is never a bad thing..... (10MP on the S95 right?)

I love my rx100 and is a good alternative when I cant get to my d7100 since I always shoot in RAW

flyboy60

Actually, doubling of megapixels is very often a bad thing - especially if the sensor size does not increase - as big pixels can have much more dynamic range than small ones due to the physics of how sensors work. But in this case, the Sony RX100 has a MUCH larger sensor, so the pixels themselves are actually quite a bit larger than the ones on a Canon S95. In fact, the S95 has fewer megapixels than other lower end cameras in the Canon lineup from the same period, for just this reason - it was meant to be a very high quality point and shoot.

What makes the Sony RX100 special amongst Point and Shoots is NOT it's resolution - as 16-20 Mexapixel compact cameras are relatively common nowadays, but rather, the Sony has a HUGE sensor compared to most compact point and shoots, so even with it's high resolution, the pixels are very large, relatively speaking (the same size as pixels in most DSLRs - since it uses a DSLR-class sensor).

Long Zhiren

When it comes to SCUBA in a location that I'm not familiar with, it's a combination of a GoPro Hero3 silver edition, a Panasonic Lumix in an Ikelite housing, and strobes. Quick Release Coil lanyards make the whole kit handy.
For cost-to-value-added efficiency, not much else makes it down to 200 ft depth.

richarddd

Big pixel sensors might have have more dynamic range (less noise) per pixel, but not per photo. See, for example, http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/32064270 and its continuation.

flyboy60

That thread does not explain why larger sensor cameras have pretty demonstrably been shown to consistently have better overall dynamic range -at the photo level, not just the pixel level - than smaller-sensored cameras of the same generation.

For years, Nikon tried to make the argument posed in that thread against Canon, but their DX sensor cameras were never competitive at the highest ISOs vs. Canon's full frame cameras. But the reality was, Nikon took that position because they simply didn't have access to full-frame sensor technology at the time, and Canon did. Then Sony developed and made available to Nikon a state-of-the-art full frame sensor, and Nikon, after evaluating it, reversed field, and immediately started making full-frame cameras (starting with the D3) that FINALLY outperformed the top-of-the-line Canons that had been taking their market share amongst the pros for all those prior years.

richarddd

The issue was doubling pixel count on the same size sensor.

Compare DxOMark dynamic range scores of the micro4/3 Olympus E-M5 to just about any Canon, including the 5Diii. Oddly enough, the E-M5 has a Sony sensor

cronin85

So what you are saying is that RX100 is a worthwhile upgrade from S95 due to it's HUGE sensor?

richarddd

Remember that a larger sensor results in a shallower depth of field and a shorter effective focal length than a smaller sensor. With the same framing, depth of field, shutter speed and sensor generation, you'll have the same noise regardless of sensor size.

If you like very shallow DOF, a bigger sensor will likely be better.

flyboy60

What I'm saying is, it's definitely a significant upgrade. Only you can decide if it's a worthwhile upgrade, since the Sony RX100 costs ~$600, and a used Canon S95 can only be sold for about $140-180 depending on condition and whether or not all the accessories that came when it was new are still there.

I personally have an S90 - which the S95 is a somewhat improved version of, and I did not make that particular upgrade to the Sony - but I did buy into the Micro 4/3 system and it's greater versatility than the Sony RX100 due to having interchangeable lenses, while keeping my S90 for when ultra portability is critical.

I've personally got a problem spending ~ $600 on a camera with a fixed lens

flyboy60

The Dynamic range alone score over-simplifies the issue - because there is a tradeoff between absolute dynamic range and response time. Look at the overall sensor scores: Canon full frames are about 10 pts higher than the best Micro 4/3 cameras. And Canon has now been well passed by the Nikon full frame cameras, which are another 10-15 points higher yet again. And the Nikon vs. Olympus comparison is more legit, because they are both using Sony sensors of the same underlying technology but significantly different sizes. Whereas Canon's sensor fab technology is a generation behind that of Sony.