Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Quality vs Value  (Read 49460 times)

springtide

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Quality vs Value
« Reply #200 on: February 06, 2009, 11:52:47 AM »

Quote from: Slough
No I don't disagree with your statement about Canon and Nikon. But if you went on to say that the Sony system is as complete, then yes I would argue. That would be a massive distortion of reality. Just because it has one well priced full frame DSLR that is liked by one or two pro-photographers does not make the system complete. It has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese.

Here is my original statement:

"Now when it comes to Sony, it is a new system, and it is not yet as strong as Canon and Nikon. It looks like it will be one of the big names on a par with Canon and Nikon, in a year or two. For many it is already on a par, if not ahead. For others it is not yet there."

I stand by that, though I think we need to wait more like 5 years. Anyone who ignores the large holes is deluding themselves. For me it is not good enough. And nor will it be good enough for many if not most sports, low light and bird photographers. Bear in mind that until a couple of years ago forums were full of people migrating from Nikon to Canon. I nearly did so myself. And if you want proof, just look at sales figures. I'm sure you will argue about the power of marketing, but it ain't so. Look how the A900 seems to have taken off. Why? Because for one market segment - landscapers, portrait photographers etc - the A900 and Zeiss lenses are highly competitive if not class leading. Once they get a Zeiss 200mm macro, and a few other lenses, then you will see sales grow even more.

You'll be glad to hear that I (mostly) agree with your statements, although I hope it will be more like 2 years rather than 5!  
But, if the economy forces development cut backs then it maybe end up being 5 years.  I think it will be interesting to see what comes out of PMA - might give us some insight about the speed of lens development which Sony believes it needs to do to complete and compete.
Logged

petermarrek

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 212
Quality vs Value
« Reply #201 on: February 06, 2009, 12:09:11 PM »

With respect to almost all posters, all of this crap is speculation. If any of us see fit to purchase a d3x because we believe that it will help us to make $$$$, so what. 3 years ago a d2x cost me $6000.00C, that cost was recovered in the first 2 jobs.  I don't hear any griping that the lates Porsche or Ducati costs $&xxx, Peter
Logged

VinceB

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
    • Frozen Light Photo
Quality vs Value
« Reply #202 on: February 06, 2009, 01:24:42 PM »

Quote from: Slough
Here is my original statement:

"Now when it comes to Sony, it is a new system, and it is not yet as strong as Canon and Nikon. It looks like it will be one of the big names on a par with Canon and Nikon, in a year or two. For many it is already on a par, if not ahead. For others it is not yet there."

I'll take issue with the "new system" part of that statement - up until last year I owned a number of lenses - some of which were more than 9 years old that would have worked fine on a A900.   As far as I'm concerned - none of the manufacturers have a complete system.  Nikon & Canon just come closer than anyone else.  

As a general statement (not a rebuttal to anyone's posts)

The Sony system easily covers every lens I currently have for my Nikon.  If I end up going Phase One, I'll have even fewer options for lenses, which doesn't matter as long as I can get what I need.   EVERYTHING is trade-offs.  Value does not equal price, value depends on the person doing the evaluation.  Some people will put more importance on price others on features and others on perceived image quality - or any of a dozen other factors.    The only thing we can do is help people understand the realities behind the marketing hype and share our experiences that might relate to someone's goals.

Logged

dseelig

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 526
Quality vs Value
« Reply #203 on: February 06, 2009, 03:23:02 PM »

You buy the equipment that fits your needs. I own canon becuase I like the crop on the 1d mk111 I shoot profootball. I shoot availble light concerts and street scenes. IE I shoot the 24 35 50 f1.4 lenses and the 85 1.2. I shoot leica as well for the street work,nothing beats a rangefinder for keeping you discreet . Nikon does not have fast wides in 24 or 35. I wish canon made better wideangle zooms but on balance canon is better for me. I also shoot the full frame 5d and the 1ds mk111 .
Logged

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Quality vs Value
« Reply #204 on: February 06, 2009, 05:32:38 PM »

Quote from: Slough
Take a look at the Sony catalogue and the huge holes in the range. No tilt shifts. No 200mm micro. No long telephotos.
And if you look at the actual dealers, you see a plethora of new old stock Minolta lenses as well, plus Sigma, and others.  Your definition of "new" isn't passing any reasonable test here.  Shoot, look at this:

Ebay Item number: 280274761896   
This is a brand new, never opened new old stock Minolta Film camera.  This was made in 1998.  If I can find ten year old new gear in minutes...

T/S - see below for comments. Telephotos, too.  200mm micro, well, there are f/4.5 200mm macros out there.  F/4.0 vs 4.5 is really splitting hairs.

Quote
The fact that some are available second hand is irrelevant. I don't want to buy my main lenses second hand and nor do many other people.

This is what I have a problem with.  95% of real pros *will* absolutely buy used lenses if there is a specific need.  In fact, most prefer it because honestly, who wants to pay a zillion dollars for a new highly focused(read - single limited use) lens, when there is a like new one right over there in the dealer's case?  Have you priced what the super long telephotos go for?  Even Canon and Nikon have gaps in this area where you need to consider used older lenses, depending upon your need(say, you need a lens that can be stopped down to F/32 as one recent thread on this forum was asking about).  

And as for tilt/shift lenses, virtually all users don't actually own one.  Very specific use tool that usually is bought from another maker that will give you your choice of mounting system.  99% of the time, it's also manual focus.  Honestly, if I was looking at a T/S lens, the OEM makers are the last place I'd look for one, considering the stupid pricing.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/367685/
$500 and works just fine.  Your choice of mount.  And this is just one of many makers of such lenses.  Only the truly daft would limit themselves to only OEM lenses.  

If you add in third party lenses, you are left with three DSLR lines - Nikon, Sony, and Canon.  They are full range.  Olympus and Leica and many of the others(plus nearly every MF camera)... they are really not full-range.  I find it a bit annoying that you seem to be putting Sony in the same category, despite there being several hundred lenses for all three of the makers that will work.  

If I was looking at a camera and the caption said "compatible with 200+ lenses" I'd consider that to be a "complete system", no matter who was making it.
Logged

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #205 on: February 07, 2009, 01:47:17 AM »

Quote from: Slough
Nikon shines more brightly:

85mm F2.8 PC micro: superb with no direct Canon equivalent.
45mm F2.8 PCE micro: superb with no direct Canon equivalent.
60mm F2.8 AFS micro: superb, beats the Canon.
105mm F2.8 VR AFS : no Canon equivalent.
200mm F4 AFS micro: superb. I have seen numerous reviews of the Canon lens which indicate that it is not as good.

Now the one big advantage of many Nikon micro lenses is that you can set the true aperture on the lens. The older 105mm lenses have aperture rings, are available used, and are excellent. I don't think you can do that with Canon. And it is easy to reverse a Nikon wide angle lens to get > 1:1. You can't do that with Canon, without buying an expensive contraption.

Nikon flash is superb and easy to use. The R1 macro flash works really well. You can use the built in flash as a commander to control off camera flashes wirelessly. I don't think Canon can do that. If you want to set up a flash system to capture a fox, and not have wires all over the place, it's easier with Nikon.

Canon equipment is by all accounts top class and it will take you a long while to discover the strengths and weaknesses of a system. I am sure Canon have strengths I know nothing about. The truth is that whichever system you use, you will find weak points, and what will make your photos will be your skill in using what you have got. You will find that it takes quite a while to discover new techniques and workarounds for issues.

May I suggest you wait until you have more experience with a system before you engage in brand wars? I have used Nikon for decades, but do not feel able to engage in a brand war, as I have never used Canon EOS.

Now when it comes to Sony, it is a new system, and it is not yet as strong as Canon and Nikon. It looks like it will be one of the big names on a par with Canon and Nikon, in a year or two. For many it is already on a par, if not ahead. For others it is not yet there.



I disagree with your statements about every one of those lenses. The Canon's 50mm macro and 60 mm macro are superb. The Canon 100mm macro is as good as Nikon's for half the price. Again, since the subject is value, Nikon again fails in this regard. A great product, yes. The same value, no. Further, Canon has the MP 65mm which offers 5:1 magnification, which is something for which Nikon, in fact, has no equivalent.

Both systems are great; however Canon's costs far less to get into---which again refreshes the topic of "value" ...



,
Logged

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #206 on: February 07, 2009, 01:51:56 AM »

Quote from: douglasf13
Whoops, sorry if I was unclear.  I wasn't responding to your macro needs.  I was responding to your statement, "For the dedicated landscape photographer doing very large prints, none of this matters, and the Nikon D3x and 14-24 mm and 24-70 mm would be the best value for even money."  The A900 with the two ZA zooms I mentioned costs around $5000 less than that Nikon setup, and I believe that is a major point of MR's article, seeing as how he is a landscape shooter.  Now, there is definitely room for discussion about which will provide the best IQ (it could go either way,) but it's splitting hairs.  Preliminarily, it seems the 14-24 Nikon is a bit better than the ZA 16-35, and the ZA 24-70 is a bit better than the Nikon.  Nikon does have t/s, but Sony has a Zeiss WA prime coming and expensive 3rd party t/s, so...splitting hairs.

  Personally, I'm a studio portrait shooter, and I wouldn't trade the A900 and ZA lenses for any other 35mm system, regardless of price, and that mostly has to do with preferring the way Zeiss draws a scene, and still wanting autofocus. Also, the A900 has the best vertical grip ever made with every control doubled, and the best viewfinder. Different shooters, different needs

  As far as the A900 vs. 5Dii with 16-35 and 24-70, that depends on the shooter.  I never shoot beyond ISO 1600 (rarely even ISO 800,) so the A900 is the no-brainer, as it's better at low ISO and has the Zeiss'.  For one that spends most of his/her time over ISO 1600, then I'd say 5dii (I should say that both of those Canon zoom lenses are known to be just a little soft.)

  As far as Macro, Sony doesn't have that sweet 1X5 macro, but there is a great Minolta 1x3, so advantage Canon.  As far as regular macro lenses, the Sony 50 and 100 are as good as any Canon.

  Telephoto with Sony will be interesting.  Their new 70-400 looks to be the best of it's kind, but we'll see.  Sony has been previewing long, expensive tele primes, but we don't know when they are coming, so I'd agree Canon seems the way to go.  Outside of 300 2.8, one has to go with used Minolta primes, which are great, but hard to find.

 
  Sorry for such a lengthy, yet generic rundown of my opinions.  These forums become so Canon/Nikon-centric that I feel like I need to interject a little Sony love in here sometimes   If anything, it's good for people to see what Sony has, because many don't realize that, whilst still not coming close in numbers to Canon, Sony has some 26 or so lenses, with more coming, and that's not to mention many of the great legacy Minolta autofocus lenses.


Very nice post. I too am pulling for Sony. It's just that right now they don't meet my needs as economically as Canon does.

However, I think their in-body image stabilization and Zeiss lenses make them very, very interesting to watch at this point. For my particular interests, macro, they were somewhere inbetween price between Canon and Nikon. I really think they have the muscle to make better equipment for a cheaper price than either company, and maybe at some point fairly soon, it will in fact be Sony who is unilaterally offering the most camera/lenses for the least money.

If that day comes, it will be they who offer the best camera value

Logged

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #207 on: February 07, 2009, 01:54:23 AM »

Quote from: inissila
John, have you considered the fact that the build quality, viewfinder, and reliability of the Canon prosumer bodies vs. a D300 are not in the same class.

Michael just reported in another thread that his 5D Mk II died on the second day in the Antarctic trip. Read here: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....31747&st=20

Here:

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RuaW

someone reports having left his 5D in the car overnight in sub-freezing temperatures - doesn't work the next morning. What's up with that?!

Where I live, the mean temperature outdoors is below freezing for five months every year! Do you think I would get a Canon prosumer camera after these reports? I have never, ever had a Nikon DSLR fail due to cold weather. I have had film SLRs run out of batteries in the cold but they worked fine after replacement with new ones. Total camera failure? Unbelievable. I sometimes need to shoot close to -30 C.

In this report,

http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00NxQL

a mirror falls of the 5D in normal use. I have read several such reports of this particular camera model, never others.

Viewfinder quality: I can't see more than 75% of the viewfinder image in the case of the 5D without taking off my glasses. I think the Canon 50D/5D Mk II viewfinders aren't comparable with the Sony or Nikon prosumer viewfinders.  To me, shooting 25% blind isn't an option.  

These factors seriously affect my perception of the value of e.g. the Canon 5D (Mk II).

I would appreciate if people would take home one message: value is completely dependent on the intended uses and preferences of the user. Categorical statements like "Canon offers more value, period" should not be made since they don't have general validity. If I can't see through the viewfinder properly, or if the camera can only be used in the summer and mirrors fall off it, it just isn't the camera for me no matter how much less expensive their supertelephotos are.

Before anyone notes, I am perfectly aware that people successfully use Canon 1 series camera bodies throughout the winter in extreme conditions. That's not my point - then, for full-frame we get back to the 6-8k price category so much criticized for the value aspect.



Good counter-point.

However, it is only a good counter-point for those in ice-cold climates  

Being in Florida, however, what happens at -30 degrees is of little concern to me ... but if I ever visit my friend up in Montana, I will remember this post

Jack

PS: I am curious how the 50D would handle in that weather.
Logged

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #208 on: February 07, 2009, 01:59:35 AM »

Quote from: RafalA
I know that statement is flawed. But, I was just trying to show Jack that Canon is not always the best value. A point which he seems to have ignored since. :-)
I tend to shoot two bodies so having overlapping lenses annoys me somewhat. I currently shoot either 17-40 and 24-70 or 24-70 and 70-200, and I often find myself framing with the 17-40 only to realize I should be using the 24-70 as I've moved into its FL and I know it's the sharper lens of the two.
In the end, it's all subjective!


I never said Canon was "always" the best value. I said it offered the best whole system value. What you have ignored twice (three? four times?) is my acknowledging that, in certain combinations/applications, other systems do in fact offer the best value.

But none of them can touch Canon for value as a whole system ...

Jack



.
Logged

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #209 on: February 07, 2009, 02:08:06 AM »

Quote from: pegelli
Jack,
I can see your logic if you define value the way you do here.
I think however that value is not an absolute but tied to what people need and want, i.e subjective. So for me "BETTER VALUE" is defined as "the most options I need or want for the least money". So for instance if I put most value on a set of stabilized high speed primes (35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 135/1.8) my assessment of the the value of one system vs. the other looks much different than yours.
I think most people who have reacted vigorously to you posts in this thread are not disputing your assessment of what determines value in a system for you, they're simply saying that for them other factors determine their assessment of the value.
I hope this helps, because inbetween some of the flaming posts there is a very interesting discussion going on here, which I also value  very much


That is pretty much what I was trying to express.

For instance, let us even "cross platforms" for a moment to show just how much more value the Canon offers than Nikon. In the US I have previously shown how, at super-telephoto there is simply no equal in value to the Canon system. In either quality or price. Just to get a 50D and 600mm lens (versus a D300 and 600mm Nikkor), I have saved $2,700+

Now, conceding that Nikon offers the better wides, with that extra $2,700 I just saved in buying Canon, I could buy a Nikon D700

In other words, if I bought a Canon crop and super-telephoto, instead of Nikon, I would not only be getting the better reach, the better lens, and saving money ... but with that very savings, I could turn right around and buy Nikon ... and take advantage of their strong point, which is wide-angle. I would essentially be getting a "free" Nikon D700 by buying Canon ... and I could choose to buy Nikkor's 14 mm for a wide to go with it

So for those who were talking of multiple bodies, why not cross-platform multiple bodies?

Buy the system that offers you the best price/performance in their area of specialty, and then take that savings and buy towards their competitor's best price/performance specialty ...

Jack



.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 02:13:52 AM by JohnKoerner »
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Quality vs Value
« Reply #210 on: February 07, 2009, 02:54:32 AM »

Jack, I forgot to mention that there have been some pretty strong rumors that Sony has an all new, Sony/Zeiss 200mm macro lens coming, which may peak your interest a little bit, although Im sure that sucker won't be cheap.  Regardless, I think you're right that Sony has the possibility of bringing a down. On the opposite end of the spectrum from my A900, Sony has an A200 which is very good and very cheap, and it outspecs the Nikons in it's price range (lenses not withstanding.)
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10122
    • Echophoto
Quality vs Value
« Reply #211 on: February 07, 2009, 03:37:18 AM »

Hi,

I see your point. I'd just add that I essentially always carry two bodies, just in case a body would fail. Having a cross platform mix you would not be able most of your lenses on the backup body if your main camera failed.

I'm also somewhat skeptical about all this discussion about value. Most of us have a lot of legacy stuff and you simply go on with what you happen to have, this may admittedly not always the smartest. IMHO there is also a bit to much Canon bashing for wide angles, it seems to be true that none of the full frame Canon extreme wides are top notch, but Nikon has also only one top notch lens, the 14-24/2.8 and before the D3x no really demanding camera to put it on. AFAIK the Canon 10-22 is a very good lens and so is the 24-105/4.

Best regards
Erik Kaffehr
Quote from: JohnKoerner
That is pretty much what I was trying to express.

For instance, let us even "cross platforms" for a moment to show just how much more value the Canon offers than Nikon. In the US I have previously shown how, at super-telephoto there is simply no equal in value to the Canon system. In either quality or price. Just to get a 50D and 600mm lens (versus a D300 and 600mm Nikkor), I have saved $2,700+

Now, conceding that Nikon offers the better wides, with that extra $2,700 I just saved in buying Canon, I could buy a Nikon D700

In other words, if I bought a Canon crop and super-telephoto, instead of Nikon, I would not only be getting the better reach, the better lens, and saving money ... but with that very savings, I could turn right around and buy Nikon ... and take advantage of their strong point, which is wide-angle. I would essentially be getting a "free" Nikon D700 by buying Canon ... and I could choose to buy Nikkor's 14 mm for a wide to go with it

So for those who were talking of multiple bodies, why not cross-platform multiple bodies?

Buy the system that offers you the best price/performance in their area of specialty, and then take that savings and buy towards their competitor's best price/performance specialty ...

Jack



.

Slough

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #212 on: February 07, 2009, 12:32:31 PM »

Quote from: JohnKoerner
I disagree with your statements about every one of those lenses. The Canon's 50mm macro and 60 mm macro are superb. The Canon 100mm macro is as good as Nikon's for half the price. Again, since the subject is value, Nikon again fails in this regard. A great product, yes. The same value, no. Further, Canon has the MP 65mm which offers 5:1 magnification, which is something for which Nikon, in fact, has no equivalent.

Both systems are great; however Canon's costs far less to get into---which again refreshes the topic of "value" ...

Maybe once you have taken some photos with a DSLR and macro lenses you will understand some of the points I made. Until then I don't think you know what you are talking about.
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #213 on: February 07, 2009, 12:34:19 PM »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

I see your point. I'd just add that I essentially always carry two bodies, just in case a body would fail. Having a cross platform mix you would not be able most of your lenses on the backup body if your main camera failed.

I'm also somewhat skeptical about all this discussion about value. Most of us have a lot of legacy stuff and you simply go on with what you happen to have, this may admittedly not always the smartest. IMHO there is also a bit to much Canon bashing for wide angles, it seems to be true that none of the full frame Canon extreme wides are top notch, but Nikon has also only one top notch lens, the 14-24/2.8 and before the D3x no really demanding camera to put it on. AFAIK the Canon 10-22 is a very good lens and so is the 24-105/4.

Best regards
Erik Kaffehr

With respect, the 17-35mm F2.8 AFS lens is top notch and for years outclassed any similar Canon wide angle lens. (Many Nikon wide primes are scheisse, but that's anotehr story.)
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #214 on: February 07, 2009, 12:36:42 PM »

Quote from: Plekto
And if you look at the actual dealers, you see a plethora of new old stock Minolta lenses as well, plus Sigma, and others.  Your definition of "new" isn't passing any reasonable test here.  Shoot, look at this:

Ebay Item number: 280274761896   
This is a brand new, never opened new old stock Minolta Film camera.  This was made in 1998.  If I can find ten year old new gear in minutes...

T/S - see below for comments. Telephotos, too.  200mm micro, well, there are f/4.5 200mm macros out there.  F/4.0 vs 4.5 is really splitting hairs.



This is what I have a problem with.  95% of real pros *will* absolutely buy used lenses if there is a specific need.  In fact, most prefer it because honestly, who wants to pay a zillion dollars for a new highly focused(read - single limited use) lens, when there is a like new one right over there in the dealer's case?  Have you priced what the super long telephotos go for?  Even Canon and Nikon have gaps in this area where you need to consider used older lenses, depending upon your need(say, you need a lens that can be stopped down to F/32 as one recent thread on this forum was asking about).  

And as for tilt/shift lenses, virtually all users don't actually own one.  Very specific use tool that usually is bought from another maker that will give you your choice of mounting system.  99% of the time, it's also manual focus.  Honestly, if I was looking at a T/S lens, the OEM makers are the last place I'd look for one, considering the stupid pricing.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/367685/
$500 and works just fine.  Your choice of mount.  And this is just one of many makers of such lenses.  Only the truly daft would limit themselves to only OEM lenses.  

If you add in third party lenses, you are left with three DSLR lines - Nikon, Sony, and Canon.  They are full range.  Olympus and Leica and many of the others(plus nearly every MF camera)... they are really not full-range.  I find it a bit annoying that you seem to be putting Sony in the same category, despite there being several hundred lenses for all three of the makers that will work.  

If I was looking at a camera and the caption said "compatible with 200+ lenses" I'd consider that to be a "complete system", no matter who was making it.

It sounds to me that you could argue that white is black and black is white.  You're not a used car saleman are you?  
Logged

Panopeeper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1805
Quality vs Value
« Reply #215 on: February 07, 2009, 12:54:58 PM »

Quote from: Slough
Maybe once you have taken some photos with a DSLR and macro lenses you will understand some of the points I made. Until then I don't think you know what you are talking about
I don't know why you felt this condescending post was necessary. John has posted numerous times from his makro shots, made with DSLR; where are yours?
Logged
Gabor

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10122
    • Echophoto
Quality vs Value
« Reply #216 on: February 07, 2009, 04:03:04 PM »

Oh, sorry, that may be the case. My main issue is that John is an APS shooter and I don't think Canons APS-C wide angle options are bad.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Slough
With respect, the 17-35mm F2.8 AFS lens is top notch and for years outclassed any similar Canon wide angle lens. (Many Nikon wide primes are scheisse, but that's anotehr story.)

Slough

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #217 on: February 07, 2009, 05:52:11 PM »

Quote from: Panopeeper
I don't know why you felt this condescending post was necessary. John has posted numerous times from his makro shots, made with DSLR; where are yours?

Is it really too difficult for you to read my signature?

Yes my post was condescending. But then again, John recently made an extremely rude comment about one of my photos. So if he cannot take 'robust' comment, he should learn some manners, and not piss off other people. Maybe once he has developed some skill at macrophotography, then I will take his comments seriously. For example, he ignores the ability to set the actual aperture, rather than the effective one. I doubt he even knows the difference. But that does not stop him taking himself as an expert.

The internet is a strange place, where people can promote themselves as experts, and make strident statements, despite limited knowledge, based on how loud they can be. I would not for one minute make comments about bird photography since I have only modest experience. And as for portraits, or sports, I don't comment.

[Edited as I think the original response was too harsh.]
« Last Edit: February 08, 2009, 05:23:15 AM by Slough »
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #218 on: February 07, 2009, 05:53:31 PM »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Oh, sorry, that may be the case. My main issue is that John is an APS shooter and I don't think Canons APS-C wide angle options are bad.

Best regards
Erik

From what I have heard that is true, though my knowledge is second hand.
Logged

Er1kksen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
Quality vs Value
« Reply #219 on: February 07, 2009, 07:23:15 PM »

I'm kind of curious about the complete lack of attention given to any DLSR brands besides the "Top 3." On the entry-level end, I've found that Olympus provides some of the best value for the features available, especially their 2-lens kits, which often go for the price of competitor's single-lens kits. For a semipro landscape or portrait shooter who's more concerned with raw image quality than speed, the Pentax K20D looks like the best choice, with image quality equal to or exceeding the faster-operating canon, nikon, olympus, and sony semipro models (that samsung sensor is a real work of art) while costing only about $750 and sealed like a pro-level offering (I'm actually expecting to pay under $700 for a new one soon). Given its suite of photographer-oriented features, I suspect it's the kind of camera Michael would enjoy having a little time to work with, and maybe he'd appreciate the magic of those all-metal limited primes as well.

I'm on a pretty low budget, personally, so even without the economic situation I have to be value-minded, and I've found that often the value is less plentiful under those flashy top-brand logos. Or I could just be shooting a plasticy xSi with the mediocre kit lens for the same price as my K20D setup. Up until where it shorts out in a sudden rain (interesting weather conditions are among my favorite subjects). Heck, even the pentax K200D has a similar level of sealing to other maker's pro cameras, and at about $540 new it's a highly competitive upper-entry level shooter. In an article about value that devotes paragraphs to cameras costing over $2000, you'd think some of these options would at least get a mention. Oh well, perhaps in future articles. And if it's a question of the products discussed being more "pro" oriented, french fashion photographer Benjamin Kanarek, formerly sponsored by Canon, currently uses and prefers the K20D and pentax glass to the 1Ds ii bodies he used to use, even going so far as to declare the image quality from the 14mp APS-C sensor visibly superior to the results he got from the 16mp FF canon sensor. Something tells me that this is a camera that certainly deserves as much "pro" level consideration as a 40D.

I'm not trying to start an argument or brand-war here, or be mindlessly critical of Michael, as I really enjoy his articles and find them to be some of the saner commentary of photographic gear available on the web today. But it would make a sense to mention some of the other options, especially those that a large portion of your audience who can't afford most of the gear you write about may find more suitable.

And I really think you would have fun trying out a K20D and maybe an FA77 or DA40mm as a walkaround.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12   Go Up