D200 vs. PL-1, NEX or P&S

I have been thinking for some time about downsizing my kit.

I feel I might actually get better images with lesser kit due to limited size and weight. I could just take it with me more often to more places.

I miss the size of my old Motormarine II-EX...

I guess some of you might have used both and could offer a subjective opinion.

So with D200 being my reference point what do I lose if I move to Olympus PL-1, Sony NEX or canon s90/G11?

I realize NEX is yet not an option, but I believe it will.

Sensor:

I guess with NEX I would actually upgrade sensorwise. How does it compare to PL-1 and Canons?

10 megapixels and base iso performance is enough for me on D200. I'm not happy with high iso. How does PL-1 and Canon compare?

Fisheye:

I use 10.5 and S&S NX Fisheye dome. Do I lose much optical quality with addon wet lenses? Do they allow for split level shots?

I guess I would be ok with slightly narrower FOV, but I'm worried about sharpness.

Macro:

105 VR is my reference point here. What do I lose if I move?

Smaller working distance?

AF:

I'm completely satisfied with D200 AF.

Actually D70 was ok too.

Are other options acceptable?

Other considerations?

I have been thinking for some time about downsizing my kit.

I feel I might actually get better images with lesser kit due to limited size and weight. I could just take it with me more often to more places.

I miss the size of my old Motormarine II-EX...

I am also interested in downsizing. I suggest you consider the Panasonic GF1(soon to be GF2) or GH1(2). Compare on these sites:

4/3 reviews

dp reviews

There is a housing for the GH1 and several for the GF1.

Bob

!!!

I can't see how you would get good splits or macro of comparable quality. I would say that there are only three areas where the D200 is notably deficient: deep water, turbid green water and when using "slow" lenses on fast fish. AF is likely to be worse with a smaller camera, as (on first principles) is lens performance.

Tim

I still think the biggest drawback of mirrorless and P&S designs for any type of action photography is shutter delay.

I still think the biggest drawback of mirrorless and P&S designs for any type of action photography is shutter delay.

I have the Pany GH1. While not on par with the Nikon 700, it's PDQ.

Bob

Thank you for your comments.

I can't see how you would get good splits or macro of comparable quality.

Why? Lenses like panasonic/leica 45 2.8 macro and 8mm 3.5 fisheye seem to be ok.

Am I missing something?

I still think the biggest drawback of mirrorless and P&S designs for any type of action photography is shutter delay.

Reviews claim that GF1 is on par with low end DSLRs. If it was like e.g. D70 I guess I could live with that.

I wish I could try some setups in water myself to form my own opinion.

Specs and land reviews are not enough...

I'm also thinking about downsizing my kit instead of upgrading with a new DSLR. Since I'm a sony user the logical option would be a NEX but I'm still waiting for some issues to be resolved such as the availability of UW-housings, lenses appropriate for UW-photography and the quality of the sony fisheye adapter. The flash system might be also problematic for the NEX. Maybe I will go for the panasonic GF1 or the following model.

I don't have hands-on experience yet but I gathered some info from the net and I could add my opinion.

"Sensor:

I guess with NEX I would actually upgrade sensorwise. How does it compare to PL-1 and Canons?

10 megapixels and base iso performance is enough for me on D200. I'm not happy with high iso. How does PL-1 and Canon compare?"

The new NEX sensor is pretty good and the high iso performance of oly-pana m4/3 are also fine IMHO.

"Fisheye:

I use 10.5 and S&S NX Fisheye dome. Do I lose much optical quality with addon wet lenses? Do they allow for split level shots?

I guess I would be ok with slightly narrower FOV, but I'm worried about sharpness."

Panasonic has a dedicated fisheye lens that seems to be a fine glass according to the reviews. The quality of the NEX add-on fisheye adapter is still a question.

"Macro:

105 VR is my reference point here. What do I lose if I move?

Smaller working distance?"

Panasonic has a 45mm macro and a 50mm macro is coming from Oly according to the rumors. Quality is comparable to the 105 VR but you will loose on working distance (which may improve the quality of the final photo, but can be problematic in case of skittish creatures)

The real question is whether the housing companies will produce really compact housings and ports for these mirrorless cameras to fulfill their potentials.

Is this a joke???

There is no chance you'll get comparible shots to a D-200/af-105-vr on any P&S.

The entire secret of macro photography is:

1-Approaching the critter

2-Catching the critter in an interesting pose.

The AF-105_VR is a $900USD piece of glass that is lightning quick focusing and incredibly sharp. You are suggestion a $400USD camera has the same optics as the AF-105 or the same focusing capabilities as a $1600 camera.

You may have MORE FUN with a P&S if you focus on diving not shooting, but better pictures, no way!

If you are use to the D200, the shutter lag and AF are going to be the problem. You can really notice a different. Even with the best of the cameras you mention. Despite the test readings. Which of course are never made UW.

Low light performance would be the next issue. You would think that the 4/3s cameras and the Sony should be equal. From what I read though they are not using as high end sensor as a D300/D7 will.

The lenses have been mentioned. You won't get the variety of choice of lenses that you get with Cannon or Nikon. Good glass will always make a difference.

I talked this over with a dealer. I had surgery on my hand so would like to downsize as well. He suggested waiting to see what Nikon and Cannon come up with.

Is this a joke???

 

There is no chance you'll get comparible shots to a D-200/af-105-vr on any P&S.

 

The entire secret of macro photography is:

1-Approaching the critter

2-Catching the critter in an interesting pose.

 

The AF-105_VR is a $900USD piece of glass that is lightning quick focusing and incredibly sharp. You are suggestion a $400USD camera has the same optics as the AF-105 or the same focusing capabilities as a $1600 camera.

 

You may have MORE FUN with a P&S if you focus on diving not shooting, but better pictures, no way!

I think you haven't read carefully the thread. Although the OP mentioned P&S but the main emphasis was on mirrorrless interchangable lens cameras. They use the same sensors used in DSLRs and there are several nice glass produced for these cameras, e.g.:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/panasonic_45_2p8_o20/

Maybe it's not the best lens for shy critters but I'm sure it can produce comparable results coming from a DSLR with static subjects.

Low light performance would be the next issue. You would think that the 4/3s cameras and the Sony should be equal. From what I read though they are not using as high end sensor as a D300/D7 will.

Sony NEX uses a better sensor than the one in nikon D200. According to the DXO it's even better than the one in the D300 (it also uses a sony sensor). Nikon may have a better jpeg engine but these sensor are not worse in low light performance.

I don't think it's an issue.

The lack of appropriate lenses is the real issue IMHO.

Is this a joke???

No, it a serious question. I was not following developments in 4/3 and NEX very closely so far. Based on what I read recently it seems they came quite close to D200. But that is just theory and land reviews so I'm asking for real users opinions.

No, it a serious question. I was not following developments in 4/3 and NEX very closely so far. Based on what I read recently it seems they came quite close to D200. But that is just theory and land reviews so I'm asking for real users opinions.

Have you checked this topic?

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=34480

I will. Thanks.

I checked the specs. the working distance will be a maximum of (6" minimum focus - 2.5" length) or 3.5" minus the port. 1:1 at 3" versus 1:1 at 6" is a world of difference. 1/2 the subjects will split and setting the strobes will be difficult. In is more in line with an Olympus 50mm lens which simply doesn't compare to the Af-105-VR. Plus I use the Nikon autofocus exclusively because I want to catch the exact post (like a mouth open)

I like the 4/3 format. My wife has an e-620. Nice camera. Focus as fast as a Nikon/Af-105-vr NO WAY!

I would be wary of relying on a camera system that relies on a touch screen for accessing camera functions. It is hard enough to use a camera with only one dial (vs one with two dials, I mean), and trying to get around using a touch screen might be the cause of quite a few missed shots.

Of course, if you're going to shoot on auto, then it doesn't matter.

I would be wary of relying on a camera system that relies on a touch screen for accessing camera functions. It is hard enough to use a camera with only one dial (vs one with two dials, I mean), and trying to get around using a touch screen might be the cause of quite a few missed shots.

 

Of course, if you're going to shoot on auto, then it doesn't matter.

I think only the panasonic G2 has touch screen for camera functions and it's optional. Everything is accessible by hard buttons. NEX was speculated to use touch screen but finally it has only a big screen and very few buttons and lot's of menu diving.

I checked the specs. the working distance will be a maximum of (6" minimum focus - 2.5" length) or 3.5" minus the port. 1:1 at 3" versus 1:1 at 6" is a world of difference. 1/2 the subjects will split and setting the strobes will be difficult. In is more in line with an Olympus 50mm lens which simply doesn't compare to the Af-105-VR. Plus I use the Nikon autofocus exclusively because I want to catch the exact post (like a mouth open)

 

I like the 4/3 format. My wife has an e-620. Nice camera. Focus as fast as a Nikon/Af-105-vr NO WAY!

I agree with you but it's more a 50mm vs 100mm macro debate and it's independent from the system. As soon as m4/3 or NEX has a 100mm macro option only the AF speed might be limiting.

I am not impressed with the e620 af speed underwater. I don't know how that relates

I will. Thanks.

Check also this panasonic GF1 thread:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showt...0&start=100

You may contact directly fotosub70 from that topic, who has both Nikon D300s with 105mm VR and panasonic GF1 with 45mm macro according his profile. He must have hands on experience with both systems.

I repost his link with some recent panasonic macros, since they are really good:

http://forobuceo.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=75994