Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Michael Erlewine on May 05, 2017, 05:26:17 am
-
This latest rumor of the replacement for the Nikon D810 looks pretty reasonable to me.
https://nikonrumors.com/2017/05/04/new-set-of-rumored-nikon-d820-camera-specifications.aspx/
Not all of what I want, but probably at least a baby-step forward.
Modify message
-
Sounds pretty standard and underwhelming....
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
I'm hoping for a Df2 - mirrorless, about the size of a Fujifilm XT2. If Nikon could build in an aperture control around the lens mount (for G lenses) instead of a control wheel, that would be nice.
-
The sensor upgrade makes sense, to compete against the 50mp from Canon, and 42mp from Sony.
-
If it has the D5 AF and AWb this is a no brainer. The mirrorless craze and the terribly effective web gerrilla led by other brands has resulted in these progresses being sadly overlooked by many, but the AF of the D5 is pure magic. Combined with lenses such as the 105mm f1.4 or the 70-200 f2.8 this will make it hard to pick up the H6D...
I hope it will have as much base ISO DR as the D810.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sounds pretty standard and underwhelming....
+1
At the same time with all these 50MP camera's it could be the best deal.
As Bernard pointed out concerning the AF and if the image quality exceeds the already very very good D810 at 64 ISO.
Personally i am more than happy with the d810 and it would really be a lot better in some ways to make me buy it.
-
Sounds pretty standard and underwhelming....
I agree that it is an incremental update, but any new Nikon D8XX is going to be in the rather mature category of "high resolution 36x24mm format DSLR" so I am not sure that there is room to be much more "whelming", within the bounds of current technology. Some might vote for "many more and smaller pixels" or "8K video", and I wouldn't mind an accessory tilt-able EVF, but what are the wish lists within this category? (I rule out "true global shutter", because clearly that technology still involves a significant sacrifice in dynamic range through lower full well capacity, and so is not yet suitable for high quality still photography.)
By the way: does the rumored 45–46MP pixel count indicate that this will not use a Sony sensor? It would seem strange for Sony to produce a sensor of just slightly higher pixel count than the 42MP one in several of its own recent cameras.
-
Want it said that it was the first time Tipp ? So my guess as would be it's complete BS and has no real value at all.
In the end we can only wait and see.
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
The only thing that would called anything but evolutionary is a move to mirrorless, right?
This is becoming totally un-related to photography, isn't it?
I mean, amazingly accurate and fast AF, potentially the best image quality, amazing AWB in mixed lighting,... with the wonderful 105mm f1.4 at f1.4 (this being the key point). If these traits are confirmed (and how could they not be there realistically?), I say have fun with "your" mirrorless, I'll focus on creating beautiful images with my old DSLR. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
By the way: does the rumored 45–46MP pixel count indicate that this will not use a Sony sensor? It would seem strange for Sony to produce a sensor of just slightly higher pixel count than the 42MP one in several of its own recent cameras.
Sony is already manufacturing the 20MPx full frame sensor of the D5 that no other manufacturer is using (the same goes for the d500 Dx sensor). So, looks like if Nikon is willing to pay for it, Sony will make it.
A bit more of MPx and even better DR will make this camera a great seller between landscape photographers like the D810...
-
The move from the Nikon D800E to the D810 did not make a big splash in the camera world (at least not right away), but those of us who work daily with the D810 heralded it as a major step forward for our work, in particular the ISO 64 and a LiveView that was actually usable. I stopped using the OVF completely. Now, here comes the D820 (or whatever name), again with perhaps minor incremental improvements that may, again, in actual use add up to a significant improvement in the overall system. Plus, we can use our arsenal of old lenses!
-
Sony is already manufacturing the 20MPx full frame sensor of the D5 that no other manufacturer is using (the same goes for the d500 Dx sensor). So, looks like if Nikon is willing to pay for it, Sony will make it.
True, but with the D5 and D500, Nikon went for a lower pixel count as a trade-off to better serve a high frame rate, high ISO speed niche that Sony was not pursuing. I find it harder to imagine what would motiviate this just slightly higher pixel count.
But as Christopher suggested, even with a couple of sources claimed, this is not a very solid rumor, so I should not read too much into it.
-
The only thing that would called anything but evolutionary is a move to mirrorless, right?
This is becoming totally un-related to photography, isn't it?
I mean, amazingly accurate and fast AF, potentially the best image quality, amazing AWB in mixed lighting,... with the wonderful 105mm f1.4 at f1.4 (this being the key point). If these traits are confirmed (and how could they not be there realistically?), I say have fun with "your" mirrorless, I'll focus on creating beautiful images with my old DSLR. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
A bit too defensive no? Amazing fast and accurate AF is no longer the sole domain of DSLRs (e.g. recent Sony A9, even the older Sony A6500). I think you should also be able to create beautiful images with a Sony ILCE:)
-
A bit too defensive no? Amazing fast and accurate AF is no longer the sole domain of DSLRs (e.g. recent Sony A9, even the older Sony A6500). I think you should also be able to create beautiful images with a Sony ILCE:)
This was all tongue in cheek, I don't really care. I'll buy a a9 if it performs per my expectations, helps me take nicer images and better than what I have today.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A bit too defensive no? Amazing fast and accurate AF is no longer the sole domain of DSLRs (e.g. recent Sony A9, even the older Sony A6500).
Well... it is. Reality vs marketing. I still use a D700 and this "2007/2008 AF system" is still more snapy than any mirrorless I know of.
-
I still use a D700 and this "2007/2008 AF system" is still more snapy than any mirrorless I know of.
Which mirrorless have you experienced for AF?
It seems agreed that EVF cameras using only contrast detect AF are well behind SLRs for AF speed, in particular when tracking moving subjects and such, but some of the new on-sensor PDAF/hybrid systems from Canon, Olympus and Sony have got impressive reviews for C-AF and such.
-
I used the XT2 and the A7r2. Yes, the A7r2 can catch the eye (...) but damn, nowhere near what can achieve the old D300s, the old D700 and even less D4/D500/D5 (canon is in the same league as Nikon, AF wise now). Probably why Canon or Nikon don't even argue or try to fight at a "marketing" level on the superiority of the DSLR AF system.
In the other hand, Mirrorless brands ALWAYS push on the "superiority" of their AF >> marketing. Some pros are seduced, rent or buy to try it out and often marketing is followed by deception. Then your bank account can be lubricated by brands to tell how much better the XT2 AF is, compared to the D4s, and I do not even talk about Sony. Level 125 master degree in lubrication.
By the end of the day, real people living from photography all day long since years, who invested in serious brands with serious pro service behind since decade, are considered like marginal people (on forums) because they are in the reality of the job. Yes, the CAM AF module in the D300s/D3/D700, old stuff, is even today more efficient than 90% of the mirrorless marketing landscape.
The AF system we can find in the D4/s/D750/D500/D5 ... is completely overkill considering most photographer's needs. It is just phenomenal.
One should prove me that 400 AF point are better than 51 even in action and at a moderate price. Equivalent ? Ok. Superior ??? this will vastly depend on the photographer.
Since forums (all) have been raped by zealous lubricated marketer accounts, it is now impossible to be serious or to speak about anything on internet.
Reality vs marketing.
-
The move from the Nikon D800E to the D810 did not make a big splash in the camera world (at least not right away), but those of us who work daily with the D810 heralded it as a major step forward for our work, in particular the ISO 64 and a LiveView that was actually usable. I stopped using the OVF completely. Now, here comes the D820 (or whatever name), again with perhaps minor incremental improvements that may, again, in actual use add up to a significant improvement in the overall system. Plus, we can use our arsenal of old lenses!
I agree with you 100%.
-
Simple example of Old AF system in AF-C mode. There is trees and branches between the girl and me, a lot. The D700 AF-C (with the 180 f2,8) kept track numerous times. Simply put, I never ever blamed the Multi-CAM 3500FX module and even less the recents Nikon AF modules. Never. And you know what ? They can't be blamed. If one blame this AF system he should look at his own skills first, not the material.
(http://i.imgur.com/sXLh2Tg.jpg)
Maybe the Sony A9 is equivalent to the old D700 in focusing, or maybe not. Nikon simply didn't released EVF "pro" cameras because reality is different than forums (and if you start to trust forums.. Nikon is DYINNNNGGG !!!). The tech isn't perfectly efficient yet (and many don't like EVF... plain and simple). For Sony it seems to be efficient but at 5000 USD...
So the good EVF probably exist but the price for DSLR performance might be too high yet.
The so called EVF performances are vastly fabled and hyped over sales blogs and amazon platforms... and, as I said, all forums are now polluted by large amount of nonsenses.
That said, the upcoming D something will be a good camera, as usual. Not a hyped camera (they already tested with the Df).
-
Well... it is. Reality vs marketing. I still use a D700 and this "2007/2008 AF system" is still more snapy than any mirrorless I know of.
Well, it isn't. Reality vs. lack of trying. You need to try the cameras I mentioned.
-
I do not care about the cameras you mentioned. Before all I care about quality and professional service behind (and resale value of the material).
The A9 is at 5300 € (lol) in Europe... nope, thanks.
Simply put, if Nikon want to "counter" (they do not need) the (too expensive)A9 they just have to put the D5 sensor inside the D500, like they did with the D700 and the D3. Frankly, they don't need to do it.
If one want reach and speed for sport, the D500 is just an ultimate machine, well supported and serviced all around the planet and not expensive (and with a real Lens line).
-
What i would like to see in the d820...
Touch screen like most nikon dslr's have now - touch means sharp + fire where you put your finger or something else at choice like zoom in)
built in wifi that really works ( solid software to remotely control the camera)
an electronic shutter - choose between liveview and electronic shutter or real shutter (one press not two) - SILENT/ only shutter sound
better implemented splitscreen...
More pixels than 36MP; most of my lenses do 75MP in the central area some even about 150MP (borders i do not know)
to name a few-
-
I do not care about the cameras you mentioned. Before all I care about quality and professional service behind (and resale value of the material).
The A9 is at 5300 € (lol) in Europe... nope, thanks.
Simply put, if Nikon want to "counter" (they do not need) the (too expensive)A9 they just have to put the D5 sensor inside the D500, like they did with the D700 and the D3. Frankly, they don't need to do it.
If one want reach and speed for sport, the D500 is just an ultimate machine, well supported and serviced all around the planet and not expensive (and with a real Lens line).
Ok, first you mention that the mirrorless cameras you know of do not have pro-quality AF, or something like that. I pointed you to two recent mirrorless cameras that have very good AF, especially the A9.
Now you say you do not want to try this camera... anyway, you can bury the head in the sand, or keep moving the goal posts (lack of pro support, too expensive - for you. I might add), whatever. As for the real lens line, fear not, even Kevin in his A9 report mentioned that Sony will introduce lenses for sports photogs. Check some reports that are coming up from the A9 and its AF capabilities.
As for the price of the A9, it is still cheaper than the cameras it competes against, namely the 1DX and D5.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/3XhH0Xg.jpg)
For 99 more Euros + the lens line + the real pro service ... sorry I still choose the D5...
-
(http://i.imgur.com/3XhH0Xg.jpg)
For 99 more Euros + the lens line + the real pro service ... sorry I still choose the D5...
Sure, sounds reasonable. The D5 was launched in Jan 2016, so let's see how much the Sony A9 will cost after 18 months in the market. the A9 is certainly interesting regarding silent operation with no VF blackout, for instance.
-
The rumours are getting updated: https://nikonrumors.com/2017/05/16/rumors-update-the-nikon-d820-will-have-the-same-af-system-as-the-d5.aspx/
Now they say same AF as D5.
-
The rumours are getting updated: https://nikonrumors.com/2017/05/16/rumors-update-the-nikon-d820-will-have-the-same-af-system-as-the-d5.aspx/
Now they say same AF as D5.
That seems very likely, the D810 already had the same AF module as the D4... but the D5 is indeed in a different league:
- in terms of accuracy at f1.4
- in terms of speed
- in terms of tracking ability
- in terms of eye detection ability
This may be the last DSLR anyone would ever need.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This may be the last DSLR anyone would ever need.
Until something more shiny comes a few years later :)
-
Until something more shiny comes a few years later :)
maybe it will be the last ...DSLR... anyone would ever need.
Like the F6 was the last film DSLR
-
maybe it will be the last ...DSLR... anyone would ever need.
Like the F6 was the last film DSLR
It could be... although I already switch to a mirrorless system and I think the future will be dominated by them, I still think the change is not going to be like film to digital, I still think DSLR has other good 10 years of life... but then again... I'm usually wrong all the time :D
-
maybe it will be the last ...DSLR... anyone would ever need.
Like the F6 was the last film DSLR
I would bet that DSLRs will keep being updated until the 2020 Olympics with a D6 to be released late 2019... and then live a slow death for another 3-4 years.
That would be a nice symbol.
The first Nikon FF mirrorless will probably be released later this year I would think.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That seems very likely, the D810 already had the same AF module as the D4... but the D5 is indeed in a different league:
- in terms of accuracy at f1.4
- in terms of speed
- in terms of tracking ability
- in terms of eye detection ability
This may be the last DSLR anyone would ever need.
Cheers,
Bernard
How is the D810 eye detection (and tracking) ability (quite sure that on the potential D820 it will be even better) in terms of shooting portraits wide open (@F1.4)?
I had many good years the D800 but on that one I wasn't very fond of the AF, especially for shooting wide open with subjects being more far (8m+).
The A9 looks very impressive to me ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmYw1jAxho4 ).
Thanks.
-
How is the D810 eye detection (and tracking) ability (quite sure that on the potential D820 it will be even better) in terms of shooting portraits wide open (@F1.4)?
I had many good years the D800 but on that one I wasn't very fond of the AF, especially for shooting wide open with subjects being more far (8m+).
The A9 looks very impressive to me ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmYw1jAxho4 ).
Thanks.
I would not trust it- it has face detection not eye...
But i manage to get very tight sharp shots wie open with all my lenses now after calibration.
To be really sure you should use liveview at 100%.
-
But i manage to get very tight sharp shots wie open with all my lenses now after calibration.
There's the 'gotcha' - "after calibration"
To be really sure you should use liveview at 100%.
.. or a Sony Alpha series - cue the Nikon fanboy onslaught ... ~:)
-
Plus, we can use our arsenal of old lenses!
There's the valid reason for staying with Nikon!
-
How is the D810 eye detection (and tracking) ability (quite sure that on the potential D820 it will be even better) in terms of shooting portraits wide open (@F1.4)?
I had many good years the D800 but on that one I wasn't very fond of the AF, especially for shooting wide open with subjects being more far (8m+).
The D810 isn't much better than the D800 AF wise.
The D5 is in a diffeent league.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
D5 is 20MP
D820 will be about 46MP that is also a different league.
i can remember the d810 had the same AF as the D4 but finetuned for 36MP...
In reality i find it a good af system but at infinity not very precise.
and af finetuning of the lenses is a must. ( i use nikon and sigma lenses)
But if you have done that it is very rewarding.
-
No matter what the other features are, it ultimately cimes down to the sensor. That's the reason people bought the D810 instead of the D4, D5, D750 or some other camera
The D800's sensor beat anything else out at the time, and, on the D810, remained competitive against Sony's A7r2 while making up for the 5Ds's megapixel advantage with its huge DR advantage.
But will the D820 have the same advantage over the 5Ds2 and A9r? Almost certainly it will lose in resolution - 46MP vs a likely 70-80MP for Sony's new sensor, and likely at least 60MP for any 5Ds replacement. And Canon has remedied its deficiency in sensor DR (the 5D4 and 1Dx2 having DR competitive with similar sensors from other manufacturers) while Sony has made great strides in AF since the initial A7r. The D820 won't be launched into the same empty space as the D800 - it will be up against two competitive and better-resourced rivals.
-
That is true.
As the moment to my eyes the best reason to use Nikon is the quality of their recent lenses and the AF of the D5. Whether it is the 19mm T/S, the 70-200 f2.8 E FL, the 105mm f1.4, their super teles, they beat anything else out there, including Canon lenses described by Canon users until now as out of this world brilliant (and I am sure they are).
They stabilized 24-70 f2.8 is only very good, but VR makes all the difference in the world for such a lens. Obviously all lenses are stabilized on the Sony.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
..
As the moment to my eyes the best reason to use Nikon is the quality of their recent lenses and the AF of the D5. Whether it is the 19mm T/S, the 70-200 f2.8 E FL, the 105mm f1.4, their super teles, they beat anything else out there, including Canon lenses described by Canon users until now as out of this world brilliant (and I am sure they are).
...
Talking about Nikon lens quality; there is still much to desired .
the best example is the mediocre 1.4g 50mm lens introduced with the D3x camera. At that time they should have made a lens in line with the 105mm f1.4 .
Now a decade later there is still nothing better?
I am very happy Sigma jumped in with the ART line.
I am sure Nikon has the power to make beautiful lenses as you stated. In 2016 they made a nice turn introducing very nice lenses indeed, like the superlight 300pf lens that makes very beautiful rendered images.
-
The D820 looks like it might be a good reason to stick with Nikon if you already have Nikon lenses, but not a reason to jump ship to Nikon if you're currently running Canon or Sony, or if (like me at the moment) you have no camera equipment whatsoever.
Going on Canon's and Sony's technical progress over the last few years, it seems almost certain that the A9r/A7r3 and the 5Ds2 will have the D820 soundly beaten as a camera for landscape/studio/other non-action subjects, unless Nikon can blindside the competition with a 70+ MP sensor with 15 stops of DR (which is essentially what they did last time with the 36MP Exmor, against the 22MP 5D3 and its banding shadow noise).
-
The D820 looks like it might be a good reason to stick with Nikon if you already have Nikon lenses, but not a reason to jump ship to Nikon if you're currently running Canon or Sony, or if (like me at the moment) you have no camera equipment whatsoever.
Going on Canon's and Sony's technical progress over the last few years, it seems almost certain that the A9r/A7r3 and the 5Ds2 will have the D820 soundly beaten as a camera for landscape/studio/other non-action subjects, unless Nikon can blindside the competition with a 70+ MP sensor with 15 stops of DR (which is essentially what they did last time with the 36MP Exmor, against the 22MP 5D3 and its banding shadow noise).
Over the years Nikon has always been a bit behind, but always came up with very solid cameras without major weaknesses;
It is a different company approach that is also reflected in keeping the bajonet compatible with all their lenses.
When i bought the solid and elegant Nikon FE i could have chosen the Canon A1- a completely different camera filled with buttons and in a way more modern.
Sony manages to put lots of new material out. Maybe they rush forward a bit too much to control the quality. Like Sigma on lenses they are aggressively pushing the boundaries- a good thing.
I think that Nikon is now going through a company change from DSLR to more electronic EVF cameras. They have shown that they can make good EVF cameras - i have a very nice J5 to prove it.
The megapixel race is not that important beyond 36MP. It is like 4K video vs 1080P. Only with certain type of photography and printed display you see the 36MP.
I have a lot of perfect large images- what is missing is the outlet to show them in all their quality.
I think the major weakness of Nikon is on the side of software. it is not on the same level as the hardware/firmware.
-
Shadowblade,
I think that for the majority of photographers, all the major camera manufacturers make excellent cameras. The practical differences are so slight that personal preference probably has more influence in the selection.
Pick whatever camera you like, it will be a good one and you can then start working on your technique to take advantage of what the camera can do.
I know that in my situation, my camera is not the weakest link in the photographic system. :-[
The best time to buy a camera is always two to three years from now
The best time to practice your photographic technique is right now
-
Technique and gear have nothing to do with each other.
If you think technique is all that matters, go and shoot with an iPhone. If you think that technique trumps gear, take that iPhone shot of a landscape against a setting sun, with action happening in the foreground, and print it as a 40x120" panorama, to be viewed close-up.
If your subjects and display methods are well within the technical limits of any gear, gear may not matter much to you. But if many of your shots and prints are running up against the technical limits of the gear, things like DR, resolution, ISO capability, etc. are real tradeoffs.
-
Talking about Nikon lens quality; there is still much to desired .
the best example is the mediocre 1.4g 50mm lens introduced with the D3x camera. At that time they should have made a lens in line with the 105mm f1.4 .
Now a decade later there is still nothing better?
I am very happy Sigma jumped in with the ART line.
I am sure Nikon has the power to make beautiful lenses as you stated. In 2016 they made a nice turn introducing very nice lenses indeed, like the superlight 300pf lens that makes very beautiful rendered images.
True, the 50mm f1.4 is sub-par but you have to look hard to find such examples in their line up. All of their cheap and compact f1.8 lenses are excellent (the 85mm f1.8 and 24mm f1.4 stand out in particular), the 300 f4 PF is indeed brilliant,...
What I find puzzling is the difference of business results btw Nikon and Canon when the facts show that today Nikon has the better cameras and overall the better lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Until something more shiny comes a few years later :)
Or until the new kid on the block is mirrorless, leaving DSLR's to slowly fade away.
-
I'm one of those who likes to see reality as reflected in a mirror, as opposed to a digital concoction.
My main concerns about any new camera, are weight, megapixel count, dynamic range, focussing accuracy, lens compatibility with the lenses I already own, cost, and general ease of use.
Having jumped from Canon to Nikon, I'm not keen on jumping again to Sony.
-
Shadowblade,
If you think technique is all that matters, go and shoot with an iPhone. . . .
your reply refutes the bizarrely common, absurd and extreme dogma that technique is everything and gear is nothing, but the post you replied to was not saying that:
... I think that for the majority of photographers, all the major camera manufacturers make excellent cameras. The practical differences are so slight that personal preference probably has more influence in the selection. ...
So what happens when we limit the comparison to the best ILC cameras from various makers, or to comparing the best cameras of each brand in a given format, leaving aside extremes like phone cameras and small sensor compacts? My guess is that within a format, the results achieved by most (but not all) photographers in most (but not all) situations will depend far more on their technique than on their equipment.
But I do not like either/or, all-or-nothing comparisons. I prefer to think of the "gamut" of a camera: the range of situations where its results are about as good as can be got with any gear. Phone camera have a far smaller gamut than ILCs, and my modest MFT kit has a smaller gamut than the best available in formats 36x24mm and up, but there is a healthy range of cases (like some scenes without extreme subject brightness range, little or no subject motion, where large DOF is desired, and to be viewed "normally", not with pixel-peeping scrutiny) that fit in the gamut of even good phone cameras, and many more that fit the gamut of my MFT kit. That is not to say that more demanding cases make greater demands on both gear and technique!
-
True, the 50mm f1.4 is sub-par but you have to look hard to find such examples in their line up. All of their cheap and compact f1.8 lenses are excellent (the 85mm f1.8 and 24mm f1.4 stand out in particular), the 300 f4 PF is indeed brilliant,...
What I find puzzling is the difference of business results btw Nikon and Canon when the facts show that today Nikon has the better cameras and overall the better lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
.
No, Canon in general has the better lenses, now more than ever. Check out comparisons in DP review in detail. Factual comparisons are more reliable than subjective comments. The sensor gap is closing to. A number of years ago I was tempted to change to Nikon, I am glad I did not.
-
... The sensor gap is closing to....
As is the lens gap?
-
Canon has some very good lenses, but as far as I am concerned for all the lenses that matter Nikon has the upper hand:
- 19mm T/S
- 24-70mm f2.8 for which VR is a game changer
- 70-200mm f2.8 where the Nikon is IMHO the best zoom kens ever designed
- 105mm f1.4 that is the king of portait lenses in terms of look and technical perfection
- compact 300mm f4 PF
- all the super teles except the 200-400mm f4
- all the compact f1.8 primes
Those are not impressions, those are factual.
As a result I have a hard time seeing how Canon could be considered ahead, but I am willing to listen . ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Canon has some very good lenses, but as far as I am concerned for all the lenses that matter Nikon has the upper hand:
- 19mm T/S
- 24-70mm f2.8 for which VR is a game changer
- 70-200mm f2.8 where the Nikon is IMHO the best zoom kens ever designed
- 105mm f1.4 that is the king of portait lenses in terms of look and technical perfection
- compact 300mm f4 PF
- all the super teles except the 200-400mm f4
- all the compact f1.8 primes
Those are not impressions, those are factual.
As a result I have a hard time seeing how Canon could be considered ahead, but I am willing to listen . ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
You are clearly a very intelligent person who is well versed in the technical aspects of the art and science of photography, and a generous contributor to this forum. Your postings are always interesting to read and I find myself in agreement with you on a wide range of topics.
At the end of the day if you are happy with your equipment selections and I am happy with mine we both win. And we likely both know "the best" will always be a moving target of constant competition among manufactures in addition to the users subjective evaluations and needs. Specific lenses may particularly stand out, like your 105f1.4, which does look spectacular, until Canon releases their 85f1.4 IS soon ;)
My concern here is more basic than a friendly Nikon / Canon rivalry; which is the statement of "facts" without referencing test sources by valid and respected evaluators, particularly when there is a strong pattern of brand devotion. "Facts" without reference are an opinion. Today, in the world of Trump, we are bombarded by "alternate facts" that are not supported by any provided evidence.
Even with a comparative study, the scientific mind must be ever vigilant to the methods used. A example of this would include a simple number put forth by a DxO study on lens resolutions while noting they used different sensors of vastly different resolutions. Yet people buy into this stuff without seeing the failings.
My position came in part from spending time on "The Digital Picture" which seems to supply some very comprehensive test chart evaluations that can be view side by side and allow the viewer to make some of their own conclusions. They do not have all the current Nikon lenses but plenty enough to see that some of the "facts" are more like myths. Even the highly touted new Nikon 70-200f2.8F seems to still fall short of the Canon. The famed Nikon 14-24 is no where near as good as the myth led me to believe. Even a number a mythical prime Zeiss lenses fall short of the Canon 16-35f2.8 III, but for the Otis.
I won't beat this to death any more. My point is that "facts" need a valid reference or else they are merely an opinion that may only add to perpetuating myths.
And some tongue in cheek; if the latest generation of super-tele Nikkors are finally a bit better than the equivalent Canons, it is due to Nikon finally buying a supply of fluorite from Canon and dropping the claim that their ED glass was better. And also buying some of those Canon electromechanical diaphragms instead of the archaic pin actuated type. So you may have some Canon DNA in those Nikkors you love!
I will continue to look forward to your posts as always.
Regards
-
...
I won't beat this to death any more. My point is that "facts" need a valid reference or else they are merely an opinion that may only add to perpetuating myths.
...
Hai,
As lens quality is concerned Zeiss, Canon, Fuji, Sigma, Nikon....All are capable of producing very good optics... no doubt...
It is usually more who made the latest...
As most of the new lenses are very sharp - it will depend on other things like AF speed/accuracy and rendering style etc.
As you mentioned the 14-24mm nikkor-
It is still a great lens and it took other companies about a decade to come with something similar...and of course some of those are better now.
Nikon will make a replacement soon is the common idea.
The 24mmPCE is probably not as good as the 24mm TS from Canon that came some years later, but the new 19mm PCE is better than the 17mm TS... etc.
Most new lenses are good enough for the finest photography.
references...
look here :
www.lenscore.org
Nobody but them knows exactly how they test, but they use a dedicated 200MP sensor to see the quality of the lens.
-
Hello David,
I am fully aligned with the need to base opinion on measurments.
My comments are based on various sources such as dxomark, Lenscore, lens rentals,...
To just give you one example, the 70-200 were compared by lensrentals and the Nikon clearly came on top. The Canon is a great lens, but the Nikon is simply outstanding. I use one as well as some of the best lenses in the world including the Otus, the best Leica R glass, the best Hasselblad glass, the best Rodenstock glass... and the Nikon zoom belongs to that club.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Canon has some very good lenses, but as far as I am concerned for all the lenses that matter Nikon has the upper hand:
- 19mm T/S
- 24-70mm f2.8 for which VR is a game changer
- 70-200mm f2.8 where the Nikon is IMHO the best zoom kens ever designed
- 105mm f1.4 that is the king of portait lenses in terms of look and technical perfection
- compact 300mm f4 PF
- all the super teles except the 200-400mm f4
- all the compact f1.8 primes
Those are not impressions, those are factual.
As a result I have a hard time seeing how Canon could be considered ahead, but I am willing to listen . ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
So if you walk into a high end gallery and see a bunch of prints on display, you can pick out which were taken with Canon lenses and which were taken with Nikon? I think not. If not...then why does it matter so much to you? Top end lenses from Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Sony, Sigma etc... All produce amazing results to the point where the prints made by these lenses cannot be distinguished with any accuracy.
-
So if you walk into a high end gallery and see a bunch of prints on display, you can pick out which were taken with Canon lenses and which were taken with Nikon? I think not. If not...then why does it matter so much to you? Top end lenses from Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Sony, Sigma etc... All produce amazing results to the point where the prints made by these lenses cannot be distinguished with any accuracy.
Don't know if I could, but I don't remember ever claiming I would be able to, did I?
The point I have been trying to make is that the current important business results difference btwn Canon and Nikon isn't the result of Canon offering better equipment.
It seems you agree.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Don't know if I could, but I don't remember ever claiming I would be able to, did I?
The point I have been trying to make is that the current important business results difference btwn Canon and Nikon isn't the result of Canon offering better equipment.
It seems you agree.
Cheers,
Bernard
Very rare the market leader in any market has the better equipment. Depending on what you shoot...maybe Nikon and/or Canon does not have the better equipment. I shoot with the Sony mirrorless system and Batis lenses...and for me the combination of weight and image quality from my setup cannot be matched by anything from either Canon or Nikon. So for me, Sony has the better gears.
Kind of childish bordering on fanboism discussion.
-
I can fully understand the reason why photographers move to Sony/add Sony bodies to their Canon line up of excellent lenses and see a good correlation btwn the value Sony delivers to the market and their growing business success. I could see myself buy a a9r easily.
I just don't see the same with Canon.
If discussing this matches your definition of childish fanboyisn then that must be what it is. ;)
Anyway, I probably took this thread off topic in the process so I would propose to keep it at that and to go back to discussing the unique value the D820 will be delivering in combination with the amazing Nikon glass.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Some of the most recent rumors puts the D820 as the D850. That's fine. They also claim it is about 44 Mpx, which keeps shrinking the size of the usable sensor. But the one rumor that horrifies me is that they say that the D850 will have the ISO engine of the D500, concentrating on the upper ISOs and not the lower ISOs like the marvelous ISO 64 that is in the D810. If this is true, then the camera would be useless for me and I will have to wait for the Sony 70 Mpx (or whatever) camera rumored to be coming this summer.
And, I would buy a backup D810 as soon as I heard that news. I don't have to have 50 Mpx, but I do need the ISO 64 that I am used to in the D810.
-
Some of the most recent rumors puts the D820 as the D850. That's fine. They also claim it is about 44 Mpx, which keeps shrinking the size of the usable sensor. But the one rumor that horrifies me is that they say that the D850 will have the ISO engine of the D500, concentrating on the upper ISOs and not the lower ISOs like the marvelous ISO 64 that is in the D810. If this is true, then the camera would be useless for me and I will have to wait for the Sony 70 Mpx (or whatever) camera rumored to be coming this summer.
And, I would buy a backup D810 as soon as I heard that news. I don't have to have 50 Mpx, but I do need the ISO 64 that I am used to in the D810.
That ISO 64 is the strongest point of the D810... That gives it the extraordinary DR that this camera has... Since I photograph landscape the 99% of the pictures will make this camera less appealing to me...
-
@Michael Erlewine and @davidgp: life is too short to worry over unsubstantiated rumors and other internet FUD about the specs of unannounced products.
@Bernard Languillier: there seems to be agreement that the comparative quality of the high-end offerings from Canon and Nikon cannot explain the recent market share shift from Nikon to Canon — and this should be no surprise, because sales and revenues are dominated by the far higher volume low- to mid-level offerings, not by the "prestige products". (Just as "Lexus vs Infiniti" debates are no way to understand the bottom lines of Toyota vs Nissan.) I have little knowledge or interest in that part of the Canon or Nikon product lines, but my guess is that it is down there that one needs to look for explanations.
-
@Michael Erlewine and @davidgp: life is too short to worry over unsubstantiated rumors and other internet FUD about the specs of unannounced products.
Well, I disagree. I have been around with Nikon since they went digital. And as the advent of a new model approaches, the rumors become increasing more correct, in my experience. This latest one is pretty convincing that they might cannibalize the insides of the D500 and go for high ISO instead of the low. It may not be so, but then again it may be correct. It makes sense, just not for my work. And I need to be aware of what my choices are or may be.
-
Where was that rumour published?
If true this would confirm my suspiscion that Nikon doesn't understand why they are successful...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... But the one rumor that horrifies me is that they say that the D850 will have the ISO engine of the D500, concentrating on the upper ISOs and not the lower ISOs like the marvelous ISO 64 that is in the D810. If this is true, then the camera would be useless for me and I will have to wait for the Sony 70 Mpx (or whatever) camera rumored to be coming this summer....
This would make no sense.
Nikon has two new camera's dealing with high iso - and they made serious effort to make the 64 asa useful in the d810. The d810 is a succes.
Why make a camera that goes back in time and has less quality at low iso than the d810?
-
This would make no sense.
Nikon has two new camera's dealing with high iso - and they made serious effort to make the 64 asa useful in the d810. The d810 is a succes.
Why make a camera that goes back in time and has less quality at low iso than the d810?
Providing this is true, but I am again doubtful about this story, there would be several possibilities...
- Nikon wasn't able to secure a sensor with the same level of performance?
- They didn't understand that the amazing quality of the D810 at ISO64 was the main reason for its success?
- They had to make this design choice to enable other key features of the D820/D850 or of another camera using this sensor (EVF version,...)?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
@Michael Erlewine and @davidgp: life is too short to worry over unsubstantiated rumors and other internet FUD about the specs of unannounced products.
I don't worry... But I must confess I enjoy them... I'm a big geek and I love to see how the different companies technological paths will go... And I love the guess part of the rumors...
Even if I was a Nikon user right now, my economy wouldn't allow me to buy the D820 right away... I'm usually buying cameras that are like two or three years in the market... But I like to keep an eye in the market... When I'm not lost around a landscape shooting...
-
Providing this is true, but I am again doubtful about this story, there would be several possibilities...
- Nikon wasn't able to secure a sensor with the same level of performance?
- They didn't understand that the amazing quality of the D810 at ISO64 was the main reason for its success?
- They had to make this design choice to enable other key features of the D820/D850 or of another camera using this sensor (EVF version,...)?
Cheers,
Bernard
I agree, but let's wait until reality manifests.
If the Nikon D850 does not have ISO 64 and/or uber-base-ISO capability, then I for one will not buy it. (I love my D810 and will just buy another as a backup.)
However, if the Nikon D850 picks up where the D810 left off, and offers a bigger sensor, better AF, plus the same peerless base ISO excellence, then I will buy it the second it's available.
-
I don't worry... But I must confess I enjoy them... I'm a big geek and I love to see how the different companies technological paths will go... And I love the guess part of the rumors...
Oh in that case, carry on! I too enjoy worry-free speculation—and mine is that Nikon knows very well that the market for its high resolution models like the 8xx series cares about good dynamic range at base ISO speed, and so Nikon is not going to make D5-style trade-offs for the sake of better performance at high ISO speeds. If it adopts some D5 innovations, they will be adjusted accordingly.
-
Oh in that case, carry on! I too enjoy worry-free speculation—and mine is that Nikon knows very well that the market for its high resolution models like the 8xx series cares about good dynamic range at base ISO speed, and so Nikon is not going to make D5-style trade-offs for the sake of better performance at high ISO speeds. If it adopts some D5 innovations, they will be adjusted accordingly.
That will be my guess too
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
Michael;
You'll be glad to read the update: https://nikonrumors.com/2017/06/29/nikon-d810-replacement-expected-to-be-announced-at-the-end-of-july.aspx
- The camera will be called D820 (D850 is still a possibility)
- 45-46MP sensor
- Improved low and high ISO
- New and improved version of SnapBridge
- No built-in GPS
- Tiltable LCD screen
- Memory card slots: one SD and one XQD
- AF system from the D5
Will be purchasing this immediately upon an actual, physical materialization. (No more pre-orders.)
-
Michael;
You'll be glad to read the update: https://nikonrumors.com/2017/06/29/nikon-d810-replacement-expected-to-be-announced-at-the-end-of-july.aspx
- The camera will be called D820 (D850 is still a possibility)
- 45-46MP sensor
- Improved low and high ISO
- New and improved version of SnapBridge
- No built-in GPS
- Tiltable LCD screen
- Memory card slots: one SD and one XQD
- AF system from the D5
Will be purchasing this immediately upon an actual, physical materialization. (No more pre-orders.)
I've been following it closely, such as it is. I will pre-order the moment it is available. This is not the path I imagined, but after deciding against both the X1D and the GFX mirrorless MF cameras (not to mention the Pentax K1), i am once again pinning my hopes on Nikon and the excellent D810 and its upgrade.
-
If it's 46MP is safe to assume it's the same sensor in the A7rII? For me a bit disappointing. Sure the AF of the D5s and tilting LCD (finally) are great additions.
The DR of the Sony 46MP underperforms to the current D810 at least from what I found when I tried it.
1. Base ISO is fine but not as clean as the D810 @ 64
2. Higher ISO's are noisy and even mid range ISO 800-1600 were much more noise prone in areas a shadow, no push or very little
3. White dots and excessive noise when used for longer exposures. Nikon to their credit fixed the issue on the D810, and fixed it behind the scenes on the D800e. However Sony never did much to effect this issue and the noise on 30" to 2 minutes is huge. I will be interested to see
if Nikon improves on this at all.
NET to me, from the amazing output of the D810 or D810A, @ 36MP, just a bump to 46 is not really that impressive to me. But if Nikon improves on the image quality over what Sony did, then it might work out.
Paul Caldwell
-
Well that is Nikon problem. They will probably use the old Sony sensor. I'm 100% sure they can make it even better like they did with the d810, and it will be nice camera.
However, im not surprised that Sony won't sell them there newest innovations....
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
Hmm - at what point is the rumour firm enough to sell my D800E, so I get rid of it before the new model impacts the price I can get for it?
-
Hmm - at what point is the rumour firm enough to sell my D800E, so I get rid of it before the new model impacts the price I can get for it?
In this case, I would wait. If the new low ISO is not equal to or better than the D810, I will have serious doubts that I need that camera.
-
If it's 46MP is safe to assume it's the same sensor in the A7rII? For me a bit disappointing. Sure the AF of the D5s and tilting LCD (finally) are great additions.
The DR of the Sony 46MP underperforms to the current D810 at least from what I found when I tried it.
1. Base ISO is fine but not as clean as the D810 @ 64
2. Higher ISO's are noisy and even mid range ISO 800-1600 were much more noise prone in areas a shadow, no push or very little
3. White dots and excessive noise when used for longer exposures. Nikon to their credit fixed the issue on the D810, and fixed it behind the scenes on the D800e. However Sony never did much to effect this issue and the noise on 30" to 2 minutes is huge. I will be interested to see
if Nikon improves on this at all.
NET to me, from the amazing output of the D810 or D810A, @ 36MP, just a bump to 46 is not really that impressive to me. But if Nikon improves on the image quality over what Sony did, then it might work out.
Paul Caldwell
I highly doubt it is the same sensor, for starters A7r II is using a 42 Megapixel sensor, not 46.
Even if it is the same sensor technology, Sony and Nikon can use in very different ways (for example, A7r used the same sensor as D800e with very different end results...) or if we compare D810 and K1, same sensor different results.
About your points:
1- Nikon added the 64 ISO prioritizing for high DR... If they do the same with the D820 they will get better DR than any other manufacturer using the same sensor in a different body.
3- white dots are there, what happens is the Nikon is applying filtering to the RAWs, to clean it, after the image has been taken. Sony also does this in their A7r II but too aggressively, creating the infamous star-eater issue.
Regards,
David
Enviado desde mi iPad utilizando Tapatalk
-
If they would use the same sensor as in the 100MP cameras but only fullFrame size - i come to 41MP
but then you have a better sensor than the D810
-
If it's 46MP is safe to assume it's the same sensor in the A7rII? For me a bit disappointing. Sure the AF of the D5s and tilting LCD (finally) are great additions.
The DR of the Sony 46MP underperforms to the current D810 at least from what I found when I tried it.
1. Base ISO is fine but not as clean as the D810 @ 64
2. Higher ISO's are noisy and even mid range ISO 800-1600 were much more noise prone in areas a shadow, no push or very little
3. White dots and excessive noise when used for longer exposures. Nikon to their credit fixed the issue on the D810, and fixed it behind the scenes on the D800e. However Sony never did much to effect this issue and the noise on 30" to 2 minutes is huge. I will be interested to see
if Nikon improves on this at all.
NET to me, from the amazing output of the D810 or D810A, @ 36MP, just a bump to 46 is not really that impressive to me. But if Nikon improves on the image quality over what Sony did, then it might work out.
Paul Caldwell
The actual achievement of the D810 vs A7R II is not so much its low ISO performance but the possibility of working at a real ISO64 gain. When both sensors are given the same exposure (amount of light) they perform substantially equal (less than 1/2 stop gap in DR). It is only when ISO64 can be used on the Nikon (tripod applications for instance), when exposure can be increased for the Nikon and this extra exposure gives a more consistent advantage to the D810.
Anyway, both low and high ISO performance of the 42 Mpx A7R II is still something to be amazed at, making of it an incredibly well balanced sensor. The D810's sensor makes a difference in more specific applications.
Regards
-
I tried the A7RII early in the life of the camera. I did not find mine to have good higher iso performance. Excessive noise at 800 and beyond. In fact that was the first thing I noticed while using the camera which surprised me since the Sony was using the BSI designed sensor.
Paul Caldwell
-
For the same ISO and exposure the D810 would have been noisier.
Regards
-
Not true for me.
As I stated ISO 800 and up the Sony had more noise. Considerably.
Which surprised me due to the sensor.
Paul Caldwell
-
Show RAW files taken in identical conditions and I will believe you. Meanwhile I'll believe DxO measurements rather a single user perception with no proof available to analyse.
Regards
-
Raw files for me are long gone.
You can easily see similar results on the dpreview comparison tool or on imaging reasources test pages.
Results are very close I won't disagree. I tend to shy away from DxO and use tests where you can download the test images and test them for yourself.
The noise plus loss of AF (I would have been using Nikon glass), along with increased noise as the camera got hot and the horrible long exposure noise issues were the reasons I chose to return the Sony.
I am sure it works fine for others.
Paul Caldwell
-
I haven't been able to see any Dpreview comparison where the A7R II has excesive noise at ISO800 compared to the D810 as you claim. Probably you are based on user perception rather than on real facts.
Regards
-
Guillermo,
I am sorry you feel it necessary to call me out on this. It's your call. I will assume you are an expert on the matter, and you thus have all the facts. I will stand down on my opinion. You are correct the A7rII is superior to the D810 totally, and I guess I am just ignorant on how to use these cameras since I found different results than those that you found. Net, the A7RII for me was not what I expected, and I returned it. However that fact that your opinion varies from mine, IMO is no reason to assume I am not able to test such cameras on my own and thus don't have all the facts. That is a bit of an insult.
Enjoy the A7RII.
Paul Caldwell
-
Guillermo,
I am sorry you feel it necessary to call me out on this. It's your call. I will assume you are an expert on the matter, and you thus have all the facts. I will stand down on my opinion. You are correct the A7rII is superior to the D810 totally, and I guess I am just ignorant on how to use these cameras since I found different results than those that you found. Net, the A7RII for me was not what I expected, and I returned it. However that fact that your opinion varies from mine, IMO is no reason to assume I am not able to test such cameras on my own and thus don't have all the facts. That is a bit of an insult.
Enjoy the A7RII.
Paul Caldwell
I have used and compared the A7RII to the D810 and agree with you Paul. The A7RII in my work is not as useful as the D810. Just look at the blacks and the power of the ISO 64 on the D810. Others agree on this point. For me, I had and sold the A7RII, and bought one again, mostly to use on the Cambo Actus for bellows work, but I never thought of it as offering better IQ than the D810.
-
Nikons former D800e had better low light than the d810.. By a margin but a clear difference.
The d810 - at least the one i have shows white noise pixels in the blacks from asa 1600 and higher, did niot have that with the d800e.
-
Nikons former D800e had better low light than the d810.. By a margin but a clear difference.
The d810 - at least the one i have shows white noise pixels in the blacks from asa 1600 and higher, did niot have that with the d800e.
That may be. I almost always just use ISO 64.
-
Nikons former D800e had better low light than the d810.. By a margin but a clear difference.
The d810 - at least the one i have shows white noise pixels in the blacks from asa 1600 and higher, did niot have that with the d800e.
The whole, exemplary point about the D810's peerless ability is ISO 64 ... not ISO 1600.
Its image quality, even today, is unmatched at Base ISO.
-
Benchmark Performance (2 Year Later): Nikon D810 Review (https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d810) (DP Review, May 2016)
- Two years after Nikon shook up the high-end DSLR market with the 36MP D800 and D800E, it consolidated the 800-series with the release of a new camera, the D810. The D810 replaced both previous 800-series models, and took the D800E's 'AA filter cancellation' trick one step further by dispensing with an AA filter entirely ...
...
- Anti-aliasing filter aside, the D810 is not by any means a reinvention of the popular D800/E concept, but the handful of major changes do make the new camera more capable than its predecessors. The D800/E were known for their massive Raw dynamic range, and the D810's ISO 64 mode improves on this ...
...
- ...The D810 isn't a camera that you should necessarily sell your D800 or D800E for, but it's a better camera than both older models in almost every respect.
...
- Sure a Canon 5DS/R out-resolves the D810, with the proper glass, but at ISO 64 the D810 has industry-leading noise performance. That means the cleanest, crispest images south of medium format, and dynamic range that matches even the Pentax 645Z. The D810 is able to pull off this little trick by extending its ability to capture light at ISO 64: it can tolerate up to nearly 0.7 EV more light before clipping the same highlights a traditional camera with base ISO 100 might. Assuming you can give the D810 that 60% extra light, it can compete with the 645Z's 66% greater sensor surface area, especially since its sensor noise floor is similar in performance to that in the 645Z. Indeed, we found it to match the 645Z's dynamic range in our real-world dynamic range shootout, beating even Sony's excellent a7R II, and handily crushing the Canon 5DSR.
-
Benchmark Performance (2 Year Later): Nikon D810 Review (https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d810) (DP Review, May 2016)
- Sure a Canon 5DS/R out-resolves the D810, with the proper glass, but at ISO 64 the D810 has industry-leading noise performance. That means the cleanest, crispest images south of medium format, and dynamic range that matches even the Pentax 645Z. The D810 is able to pull off this little trick by extending its ability to capture light at ISO 64: it can tolerate up to nearly 0.7 EV more light before clipping the same highlights a traditional camera with base ISO 100 might. Assuming you can give the D810 that 60% extra light, it can compete with the 645Z's 66% greater sensor surface area, especially since its sensor noise floor is similar in performance to that in the 645Z. Indeed, we found it to match the 645Z's dynamic range in our real-world dynamic range shootout, beating even Sony's excellent a7R II, and handily crushing the Canon 5DSR.
From what I have read (and I am not a techspert in these matters), the ISO 64 is somehow specially hard-wired for this low value. But I can say that I have never used a camera with better lo ISO and that includes the X1D and the GFX, IMO. I believe that Lloyd Chambers has commented about all of this, but I don't have time just to check it out.
-
810 might be the cat's meow uf you have the right conditions...but the A7R2 sure sings when you have to handhold at ISO 1600 and up with it's great image quality, light body and lenses and IBIS. Hard to beat the A7R2 for a walk around system during travels. Used the A7R during a month long trip throughout Vietnam and it lightness and compact lenses...was a joy to use. Lugging a 810 for a month along with the big DSLR lenses would have been a disaster.
So the 810 might be a great one trick pony, the A7R2 has much more flexibility and still delivers superb results and I would venture a lot that the majority ( if not all ) could not consistently pick which print was shot with which camera. To me...that's the bottom line, large prints and flexibility in the camera.
-
So the 810 might be a great one trick pony...
Hardly a one-trick pony! This is a good example why I don't spend much time here lately.
-
810 might be the cat's meow uf you have the right conditions...but the A7R2 sure sings when you have to handhold at ISO 1600 and up with it's great image quality, light body and lenses and IBIS. Hard to beat the A7R2 for a walk around system during travels. Used the A7R during a month long trip throughout Vietnam and it lightness and compact lenses...was a joy to use. Lugging a 810 for a month along with the big DSLR lenses would have been a disaster.
So the 810 might be a great one trick pony, the A7R2 has much more flexibility and still delivers superb results and I would venture a lot that the majority ( if not all ) could not consistently pick which print was shot with which camera. To me...that's the bottom line, large prints and flexibility in the camera.
With the finest prime lens portfolio, and the finest base ISO performance, the D810 is (in fact) a more all-around tool than the A7R II.
Hog, we get it: you love Sony/hate Nikon.
Why don't you go back to the Sony thread you started? (Oops! No one cared enough to respond :-[)
-
With the finest prime lens portfolio, and the finest base ISO performance, the D810 is (in fact) a more all-around tool than the A7R II.
Hog, we get it: you love Sony/hate Nikon.
Why don't you go back to the Sony thread you started? (Oops! No one cared enough to respond :-[)
Jonhy boy...seems like from your viewpoint, everything Nikon touches is gold...far from it. If one loves to lug around a brick all day, the 810 is your camera...but from a portability and joy to travel with...you can keep that brick in it's box on the shelf. With the IQ so close between the 810 and A7R2, it's really not a choice when it comes to comfort when traveling and the ability to handhold in dim light.
Oh by the way Johny, nice move over on FM creating another account after you got locked out...for being a Nikon fanboy... 8)
-
Jonhy boy...seems like from your viewpoint, everything Nikon touches is gold...far from it. If one loves to lug around a brick all day, the 810 is your camera...but from a portability and joy to travel with...you can keep that brick in it's box on the shelf. With the IQ so close between the 810 and A7R2, it's really not a choice when it comes to comfort when traveling and the ability to handhold in dim light.
It seems the only way you can make a point is to insult, exaggerate, and claim quotations that never were said.
Can you reference the line of any post where I said, "Everything Nikon touches turns to gold?"
Can you cite any reference where the D810 is classified as "a brick?"
I said the Nikon D810 has the best base ISO performance of any DSLR and cited my references. I also said the D810 has more high-end-primes available to it than any other FF body.
Logic would hold that, if the D810 can produce the cleanest images, if it has more available lens options, that this would make it the more all-around-useful tool.
The truth is your preference (A7rII) is only optimal within a much smaller parameter, given its available-lens limitations.
Hog, why do you feel the need to pollute every Nikon thread with your derision and exaggeration? Is it because you realize that, if you stuck with the truth, then you'd have nothing to say?
Oh by the way Johny, nice move over on FM creating another account after you got locked out...for being a Nikon fanboy... 8)
I haven't 'moved over' from anywhere; I am a paying member (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/viewprofile.php?Action=viewprofile&username=JohnK007) of FM Forum as well.
Do you think it's possible for you to be civil?
Do you think it's possible for you to stick to facts when you post (and resist your penchant for derision, exaggeration, and lies)?
I suppose it would be best for me to put you on my ignore list. After all, if one plays with hogs they cannot help but get filthy.
-
I said the Nikon D810 has the best base ISO performance of any DSLR and cited my references.
Uh, maybe not:
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D810,Phase%20One%20IQ3%20100MP
Did you mean FF DSLR?
I also said the D810 has more high-end-primes available to it than any other FF body.
I use Nikon, Leica-M, Leica-R, Coastal, Zeiss F-mount, Zeiss E-mount, Sony E-mount, and Sony A-mount lenses on my a7RIIs. If I wanted to, I could use Canon lenses as well. In the past I've used Hassy V-mount and H-mount lenses on them.
Logic would hold that, if the D810 can produce the cleanest images, if it has more available lens options, that this would make it the more all-around-useful tool.
Ultimately, what camera body is best depends heavily on the photographer. I will say that I have a D810 that I hardly ever use, and am planning on selling. I find the things that it does better than the a7RII and the GFX, the D5 does even better. My usefulness Venn diagram doesn't have much room for the D810. Others with different goals and different camera choices, may come to different conclusion.
Jim
-
Did you mean FF DSLR?
Yes.
I use Nikon, Leica-M, Leica-R, Coastal, Zeiss F-mount, Zeiss E-mount, Sony E-mount, and Sony A-mount lenses on my a7RIIs. If I wanted to, I could use Canon lenses as well. In the past I've used Hassy V-mount and H-mount lenses on them.
Not without an adapter, which limits performance.
I should have said, "Most available high-end native primes."
Ultimately, what camera body is best depends heavily on the photographer. I will say that I have a D810 that I hardly ever use, and am planning on selling. I find the things that it does better than the a7RII and the GFX, the D5 does even better. My usefulness Venn diagram doesn't have much room for the D810. Others with different goals and different camera choices, may come to different conclusion.
Jim
Yes, but the subject was optimal Base ISO DSLR performance; in that case, there's only one choice: the D810.
If you need high ISO (or action), I agree, the choice would change to the D5.
-
Not without an adapter, which limits performance.
I have found no degradation in IQ whatsoever that comes from using an good adapter. Some features may not work. In the case of MF lenses, I have not found any important feature to not work. These are corner cases, but there are some Nikon lenses that will work on the a7x with an adapter but not on the D810.
Yes, but the subject was optimal Base ISO DSLR performance; in that case, there's only one choice: the D810.
If base-ISO DR is the most important thing, I use my GFX.
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20GFX%2050S,Nikon%20D810
Admittedly, it's not a DSLR. But neither is an a7RII.
Jim
-
I have found no degradation in IQ whatsoever that comes from using an good adapter. Some features may not work. In the case of MF lenses, I have not found any important feature to not work. These are corner cases, but there are some Nikon lenses that will work on the a7x with an adapter but not on the D810.
You forgot the modifier, high-end Nikon lenses.
Certainly, an adapter doesn't "improve" any lens ... it is always an extra expense; it is always an impediment to use one.
No one would use an adapter ... unless they had to.
If base-ISO DR is the most important thing, I use my GFX.
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20GFX%2050S,Nikon%20D810
Admittedly, it's not a DSLR. But neither is an a7RII.
Jim
Cute. However:
1) The A7rII is in the same class (FF 35mm) as the D810;
2) The D810, likewise, has more high-end lens choices than the GFX (making it the overall more useful tool);
3) With the best prime lenses in the world (Otus, and other) the D810 is a better performer than the GFX.
You might want to revisit some of Michael E's posts, where he rejected both the Hassy X1D and the Fuji GFX MF backs precisely because of their lens limitations ... and because, with the best optics in front of the D810, it outperforms these backs (with their limited so-so lenses) at Base ISO.
However, if you're satisfied with what you have, I agree that's all that matters.
Which brings us back to the point of the thread: an eager anticipation to see the improvements of the D820/50.
-
Cute. However:
1) The A7rII is in the same class (FF 35mm) as the D810;
2) The D810, likewise, has more high-end lens choices than the GFX (making it the overall more useful tool);
3) With the best prime lenses in the world (Otus, and other) the D810 is a better performer than the GFX.
I haven't had only one camera since the 1950s. I don't even think that, if you're not forced to use only one camera, it even makes sense to think about what one camera would have the biggest use footprint if you had to pick only one.
In my testing, the Otus 55 and 85 performed better on the GFX than they did on the the a7RII, let alone the D810, which was another step down, for aspect ratios of 4:5 and squarer, which is where I like to work.
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/a7rii-gfx-on-axis-sharpness-w-otus-85/
But one of the great things about the GFX -- maybe the greatest -- if the Fuji lenses. The 120 macro is a marvel. The 63 is merely excellent. It is sharper on-axis than the Otus 55 on the a7RII. Again, the differences are small.
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/a7riiotus-55-vs-gfxfuji-63/
I am currently testing the 23, and it looks like a winner. I have the 110, and will be testing it more soon.
The 120 macro on the GFX outperforms the Otus 85 on both the a7RII and the D810, in my tests, although the differences are small:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/otus-85-on-the-a7rii-fuji-120mm-macro-on-the-gfx-50s/
You might want to revisit some of Michael E's posts, where he rejected both the Hassy X1D and the Fuji GFX MF backs precisely because of their lens limitations ... and because, with the best optics in front of the D810, it outperforms these backs (with their limited so-so lenses) at Base ISO.
So-so, huh? As I said, not my experience. BTW, there are aspects of the Fuji lenses that I don't like, such as FBW.
Michael and I have different goals, and quite different experiences. We have communicated about this before, and I don't believe have any miscommunication on our approaches. One of the big differences between us is that the print is my final goal, and I'm interested in how equipment affects my prints. If I remember right, Michael is not interested in prints at all. Michael, please correct me if I'm wrong here.
By the way, the above links don't explore a lot of the important aspects of lens performance. That doesn't mean that they don't interest me. Ijust don't hav space or time here to post links to all my tests.
Jim
-
Thanks for your input.
I will let Michael discuss his own findings, but will add that your previous graph (http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20GFX%2050S,Nikon%20D810) is comparing a 3 year old, $2700, 36pmx DSLR to a brand new, $6500, 51mpx medium format camera ... and the D810 is still right there with it at Base ISO 8)
If you have to advance 3 years, step up in class, and double the price ... only to be able to "split hairs" with the Nikon D810, at Base ISO, this goes back to the quote: "(the D810 produces) the cleanest, crispest images south of medium format ..."
What can you do with your GFX 50S if you see a bird 100 yards away. Care to list the high-end options you have with Fuji?
To me, the fact that you're splitting hairs with the 3-year-old, 36mp D810, with a modern 51mp medium format camera, only makes the anticipation of what an upgraded, 46mp D850 will be able to do.
-
I am not interested in prints, only in close-up work that I like to do. I am not a professional photographer, because that is a hard way to make a living. I have been a content aggregator (and systems programmer) for major film and music sites (which I founded) and worked as a senior consultant for NBC for years. I do photography for the joy of the process, and not for the results, although the two are linked.
When I say I like the D810, it does not mean I don't like other equipment. I would like to have all of the cameras and all of the lenses, if I could afford them. I like the X1D, the GFX, even the Pentax K1, but the particular group of lenses I like to use work best with the Nikon D810. I tried to leave the D810 behind, but none of the above (including the A7RII) could match the combination of lenses and the D810 IMO. My kind of photography is a very narrow band of what others can do with a camera.
I like this site and some of the photographers that post here, but am not willing to tolerate a lot of the BS that goes on here of putting others (or equipment down) down, so I have been staying away. I actually purchase and use all my equipment because it does what I want.
If the X1D could take the Oti and other fine lenses, I would probably have that camera as a keeper. And I may revisit the GFX after I try out the D820...if the D820 does not have the wonderful ISO 64 we find in the D810. My needs are pretty simple.
This is the kind of photography I like, this shot with the D810 and the El Nikkor 105mm APO.
-
Thanks for your input.
I will let Michael discuss his own findings, but will add that your previous graph (http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20GFX%2050S,Nikon%20D810) is comparing a 3 year old, $2700, 36pmx DSLR to a brand new, $6500, 51mpx medium format camera ... and the D810 is still right there with it at Base ISO 8)
If you have to advance 3 years, step up in class, and double the price ... only to be able to "split hairs" with the Nikon D810, at Base ISO, this goes back to the quote: "(the D810 produces) the cleanest, crispest images south of medium format ..."
What can you do with your GFX 50S if you see a bird 100 yards away. Care to list the high-end options you have with Fuji?
To me, the fact that you're splitting hairs with the 3-year-old, 36mp D810, with a modern 51mp medium format camera, only makes the anticipation of what an upgraded, 46mp D850 will be able to do.
As I said, I'm not a believer in one camera do try to do everything. "Jack of all trades..." and all that.
WRT the generations of the sensors, the sensor in the GFX first shipped in the 645Z, announced 4/14. The D810 was announced 6/14.
I am looking forward to the GFX 100S. We already have the rough outline of that that sensor will be thanks to the Sony sensor roadmap.
I am also looking forward to the D8x0.
It's a great time to be a photographer. My only regret is that more people don't want large prints. Oh, and that maybe that keeping up with the pace of camera tech is cutting into, you know, actually making art.
Jim
-
Why do u want to know what we do with the GFX if there is a bird far away ? Nothing, as I wouldn't choose it for that purpose. I could ask i the same dump question, what do u do with your d810 if it really rains hours after hours ? Oh yes correct nothing as it just dies of bad weather sealing...
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
Why do u want to know what we do with the GFX if there is a bird far away ? Nothing, as I wouldn't choose it for that purpose.
Why? To underscore the limitations of the GFX.
Thank you for admitting the point (without realizing it).
I could ask i the same dump question,
Yours isn't the same question, and (speaking of) dumb; it has a 'b' at the end of it not a 'p' ...
what do u do with your d810 if it really rains hours after hours ? Oh yes correct nothing as it just dies of bad weather sealing...
What do they say about turkeys and the rain? :D
That might be your solution ... mine, however, would be to retreat to cover and continue to capture images that would be impossible to capture with the GFX.
Hope this clarifies.
-
Why? To underscore the limitations of the GFX.
Thank you for admitting the point (without realizing it).
Yours isn't the same question, and (speaking of) dumb; it has a 'b' at the end of it not a 'p' ...
What do they say about turkeys and the rain? :D
That might be your solution ... mine, however, would be to retreat to cover and continue to capture images that would be impossible to capture with the GFX.
Hope this clarifies.
Well I wouldn't luv around the 810 with the behemoth lenses for a month throughout hot, muggy crowded SEA...a limitation of the 810.
-
Well I wouldn't luv around the 810 with the behemoth lenses for a month throughout hot, muggy crowded SEA...a limitation of the 810.
1) Thomas Marent (http://www.thomasmarent.com/bio) lugged heavy Nikon gear around in rainforests worldwide, for over 16 years, back when they were film cameras ... and when AI-S lenses weighed a ton;
2) 99.99999999999999% of professional photographers documenting wildlife in jungles, oceans, and deserts worldwide use DSLR cameras and 'behemoth' lenses ... exactly zero use the A9.
.a limitation of the 810.
Sounds like the only limitation is in your own body strength (or tolerance for work, effort) ... everybody else seems to be fine with these tools.
-
1) Thomas Marent (http://www.thomasmarent.com/bio) lugged heavy Nikon gear around in rainforests worldwide, for over 16 years, back when they were film cameras ... and when AI-S lenses weighed a ton;
2) 99.99999999999999% of professional photographers documenting wildlife in jungles, oceans, and deserts worldwide use DSLR cameras and 'behemoth' lenses ... exactly zero use the A9.
Sounds like the only limitation is in your own body strength (or tolerance for work, effort) ... everybody else seems to be fine with these tools.
First of all keep your ignorant comments about body strength to yourself as I believe those types of comments got you banned from FredMiranada.
Secondly, have you lugged your huge DSLR system through SEA for a month. Seems like you can rattle off all these figures...but have YOU actually lugged your system for an entire month? I'd love to hear your experiences and see some of your photos.
See, I speak from experience as before digital I shot with a Pentax 6x7 system and a full set of lenses and did haul that kit up the Canadian Rockies so I know exactly what I'm talking about. I've also spent 4 weeks in Vietnam, 3 weeks in Cuba, 4 weeks in Mexico and months in Kauai and I know the pain of hauling big and heavy gear around. I much appreciate the smaller and lighter setup afforded by mirrorless.
-
First of all keep your ignorant comments about body strength to yourself as I believe those types of comments got you banned from FredMiranada.
My comments to you are pretty tame compared to yours towards me.
I much appreciate the smaller and lighter setup afforded by mirrorless.
Really? If that's the case, here is another great lens from Nikon: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Lens (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr)
For the photographer who wants reach ... but wants to travel light. It is the lightest pro-quality 300mm lens in existence (755 g compared to Sony's 2340 g behemoth).
You might want to try it ...
-
My comments to you are pretty tame compared to yours towards me.
Really? If that's the case, here is another great lens from Nikon: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Lens (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr)
For the photographer who wants reach ... but wants to travel light. It is the lightest pro-quality 300mm lens in existence (755 g compared to Sony's 2340 g behemoth).
You might want to try it ...
Sorry...I don't shoot with telephotos. My travel kit is extremely light and compact, but delivers great results. You can cherry pick a lens here and there...but just the weight of the 810 off your wrist or neck for the day will quickly see what I'm talking about. Forget about putting any behemoth lens onto the 810.
I came from shooting DSLR for many years...I know their bulk and weight and I know the pains of carrying them for days on end. Been there, done that...not a chance going back. So how much experience do you have with a full frame mirrorless system?
-
Sorry...I don't shoot with telephotos. My travel kit is extremely light and compact, but delivers great results. You can cherry pick a lens here and there...but just the weight of the 810 off your wrist or neck for the day will quickly see what I'm talking about. Forget about putting any behemoth lens onto the 810.
Sorry, but I do. Your kit wouldn't accomplish my goals.
You also don't have to tell me about lenses, cameras, and weight: I carry 2 DSLRs, a super-telephoto lens (+ tripod), plus 5 smaller lenses, when I hike. It's not a big deal to me.
You keep trying to prescribe 'your' kit for my needs, which is a bit daft IMO.
I am here trying to talk about the upcoming D820 ... and, if you could kindly refrain from preaching Sony products here, I could get back to the original thread topic.
I came from shooting DSLR for many years...I know their bulk and weight and I know the pains of carrying them for days on end. Been there, done that...not a chance going back. So how much experience do you have with a full frame mirrorless system?
You keep talking about the 'bulk and weight' of the D810.
Let me give you the following Reality Check:
The Nikon D810 is only 880 g (your Sony A7rII is 625 g). That is only a 255 g (half-lb) difference.
Now the real real irony is this:
A Nikon D810 (880 g) + the Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4E PF ED (755 g) = 1635 g
Your Sony A7rII (625 g) + the Sony 300mm f/2.8G SSM (2340) = 2965 g, which is nearly double the weight a light-traveling Nikkor user can enjoy.
Now then, if you try to buy the Nikon lens for your Sony, the Metabones Adapter you need to use, in order to implement Nikon's lens, weighs 193 g (6.8 oz), so even here (forced to use a Nikon product, just to keep talking), the real-world difference in weight is only 62 g (2 oz) ;D
So, basically, you're going to spend $479 to add-back nearly all that weight with an adapter ... lose lens acuity + AF function in the process ... not to mention Base ISO supremacy ... just to say "you have a Sony mirrorless"? :o
No thanks, pal. I'd rather just use a Nikon camera, save myself the money on an adapter, enjoy the full-functionality of the Nikkor lens, and enjoy my Nikon ownership experience.
Another example: Sony's new 85mm f/1.4 lens weighs 820 g compared to Nikon's 85mm f/1.4, which weighs only 595 g. That is a 225g difference.
Add that back to the total weight of "your system," and you have exactly a 30 g (1 oz) "advantage" ::)
Therefore, in the end, all the crying you do about "the weight difference" really is nonsense ... and there is almost ZERO advantage to owning a Sony.
If anything, it's a pain and a disadvantage, all the way around ... to spare yourself an ounce or two of weight :-[
-
I am not interested in prints, only in close-up work that I like to do. I am not a professional photographer, because that is a hard way to make a living. I have been a content aggregator (and systems programmer) for major film and music sites (which I founded) and worked as a senior consultant for NBC for years. I do photography for the joy of the process, and not for the results, although the two are linked.
When I say I like the D810, it does not mean I don't like other equipment. I would like to have all of the cameras and all of the lenses, if I could afford them. I like the X1D, the GFX, even the Pentax K1, but the particular group of lenses I like to use work best with the Nikon D810. I tried to leave the D810 behind, but none of the above (including the A7RII) could match the combination of lenses and the D810 IMO. My kind of photography is a very narrow band of what others can do with a camera.
I like this site and some of the photographers that post here, but am not willing to tolerate a lot of the BS that goes on here of putting others (or equipment down) down, so I have been staying away. I actually purchase and use all my equipment because it does what I want.
If the X1D could take the Oti and other fine lenses, I would probably have that camera as a keeper. And I may revisit the GFX after I try out the D820...if the D820 does not have the wonderful ISO 64 we find in the D810. My needs are pretty simple.
This is the kind of photography I like, this shot with the D810 and the El Nikkor 105mm APO.
Hi Michael,
Lovely work, continue posting it here.
Yes, I totally understand your comment about BS...
Regards,
David
-
It's a great time to be a photographer. My only regret is that more people don't want large prints. Oh, and that maybe that keeping up with the pace of camera tech is cutting into, you know, actually making art.
+1
-
... You keep talking about the 'bulk and weight' of the D810.
Let me give you the following Reality Check:...
... Therefore, in the end, all the crying you do about "the weight difference" really is nonsense ... and there is almost ZERO advantage to owning a Sony ...
And that is the crux for me. It seems that a 'full-frame' sensor on mirrorless cameras requires much bigger (and therefore heavier) lenses, something that doesn't seem to apply to the smaller formats. I suspect it's to do with the physics of light, glass and larger sensor, so not easily amenable to change.
-
And that is the crux for me. It seems that a 'full-frame' sensor on mirrorless cameras requires much bigger (and therefore heavier) lenses, something that doesn't seem to apply to the smaller formats. I suspect it's to do with the physics of light, glass and larger sensor, so not easily amenable to change.
As i understand the idea is to point the rays of light as straight as possible to the sensor to have little difference in performance from center to corner.
The outcome is lenses have become longer - a good example is the new 14. 35mm zeiss lens.
So you can make the distance from sensor to the bayonet smaller, as is done with Mirrorless, but then you need even longer lenses to compensate.
A good thing would be for companies like Zeiss to bring out some high quality f2.8 lenses; cheaper, smaller, lighter.
I know lloyd Chambers as well as Ming Thein have proposed that when they visited Zeiss. (After test using the bulky 1.4 28mm Otus)
-
It seems that we are discriminating here between lenses that are light enough for backpack and travel as distinct from those that are harder to move around, but despite their weight are not simply confined to the studio.
I appreciate lightweight lenses and cameras, but not at the expense of correction and IQ. I will (and do) haul large lenses like the Zeiss Otus 28mm APO f/1.4 lenses around in the outdoors, despite their weight.
I only post this remark to make it clear that when we specify lenses for hiking and travel, and they are not necessarily the fastest or most corrected, we are doing this for our convenience in carrying them. It can be important.
I am sure that some of you don’t need or use fast lenses, and perhaps f/1.4 is not important to you. I get that and agree. But please let’s not ignore that there are some of us, I for one, that greatly value the speed, accuracy wide open, and degree of correctedness that we find in lenses like the Zeiss Otus series and other lenses.
Photo below taken with Nikon D810, Zeiss Otus 28mm APO
-
Here is my travel setup and the weight of the system. I always travel with a backup so the A6000 makes a perfect backup as it uses everything the A7R2 does including batteries and charger...so the only thing I need to throw into the bag is the 344gm A6000 and I have a full backup.
A7R2 - 625gm including battery
A6000 - 344gm including battery
Loxia 21mm - 394gm
Batis 25mm - 335gm
Sony 35mm - 120gm
Sony 55mm - 281gm
Batis 85mm - 452gm
That's a quality travel system with great glass in a compact format. There is no way a DSLR based system with comparable glass would even come close to the bulk and weight of this system.
-
Nice images, thanks for sharing!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Here is one taken yesterday with a 3 years old D810. ;)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4242/34828053504_8aebe29f94_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
when we specify lenses for hiking and travel, and they are not necessarily the fastest or most corrected, we are doing this for our convenience in carrying them. It can be important.
I am sure that some of you don’t need or use fast lenses, and perhaps f/1.4 is not important to you. I get that and agree. But please let’s not ignore that there are some of us, I for one, that greatly value the speed, accuracy wide open, and degree of correctedness that we find in lenses like the Zeiss Otus series and other lenses.
Exactly. It is clear Hogloff's area of interests lie in the "snapshot" category, where he is simply walking around taking random images of cities and the people in the cities.
(While they are nice images, they require no tripod, no precision. Instead, they're just taken, handheld, while walking around as a tourist.)
Quite frankly, any camera/lens system could accomplish similar results. (A person could bring a compact, or micro-four-thirds, and travel even lighter than he is, while securing quite similar imagery.)
What Hogloff cannot seem to fathom is that other people have different goals ... specialized interests ... and, therefore, specialized tools need to be implemented.
The Sony system, at this point, is only good for people who don't require the plethora of specialized tools that longstanding companies, like Canon and Nikon, offer in-depth to the photographer.
If we are going to limit ourselves to the "normal walk-around" prime category, Hogloff seems to forget that Nikon still makes many AI-S lenses (which are very light and every bit as capable as the lenses he's carrying.)
In fact, if "lightness" is the defining criteria, his own chosen system is nowhere near as light as it could be, either.
The same arguments he makes for choosing Sony over Nikon could be made for choosing micro-four-thirds over Sony ;)
However, if absolute image quality is the criterion, and/or if a wide variety of specialized applications are needed ... without regard to weight ... but with a premium placed on quality + available top-level options, then neither Sony nor micro-four-thirds qualify.
Which brings us back to this thread topic.
-
There are many photographers that I respect who do not need or use fast lenses. Of course, they all love the Zeiss lenses (Milvus, etc.) which skip having f.1.4, etc. and just offer f.2.8 or somewhere there. I understand.
Yet, I need fast lenses because that razor-thin DOF can be stacked and we can paint focus wherever we like, leaving the rest in the very nice bokeh we can get at f/1.4.
Also, I appreciate the brightness we can get with f/1.4, as well. As they say, "horses for courses." I appreciate that. What I don't like is making everything personal, putting equipment (or people) down or up. It is what it is. There are many kinds of photographers.
-
Exactly. It is clear Hogloff's area of interests lie in the "snapshot" category, where he is simply walking around taking random images of cities and the people in the cities.
(While they are nice images, they require no tripod, no precision. Instead, they're just taken, handheld, while walking around as a tourist.)
Quite frankly, any camera/lens system could accomplish similar results. (A person could bring a compact, or micro-four-thirds, and travel even lighter than he is, while securing quite similar imagery.)
What Hogloff cannot seem to fathom is that other people have different goals ... specialized interests ... and, therefore, specialized tools need to be implemented.
The Sony system, at this point, is only good for people who don't require the plethora of specialized tools that longstanding companies, like Canon and Nikon, offer in-depth to the photographer.
If we are going to limit ourselves to the "normal walk-around" prime category, Hogloff seems to forget that Nikon still makes many AI-S lenses (which are very light and every bit as capable as the lenses he's carrying.)
In fact, if "lightness" is the defining criteria, his own chosen system is nowhere near as light as it could be, either.
The same arguments he makes for choosing Sony over Nikon could be made for choosing micro-four-thirds over Sony ;)
However, if absolute image quality is the criterion, and/or if a wide variety of specialized applications are needed ... without regard to weight ... but with a premium placed on quality + available top-level options, then neither Sony nor micro-four-thirds qualify.
Which brings us back to this thread topic.
Can you please keep your childish insults to yourself...remember that got you banned on FM. Learn from that.
As far as "snapshots go", would you call these photographers snapshot shooters?
Cartier-Bresson
Robert Frank
Gary Winogrand
Robert Doisneau
Elliott Erwitt
They all carry a small light camera and shoot on the fly.
Oh...and by the way, I also do landscape photography where I do use bigger lenses, but still my Sony camera as it delivers wonderful landscape images. A few of my images follow. Maybe Johnny, rather than all your talking, lets see some of those award winning photos you have with your "league leading" lenses and cameras.
-
Can you please keep your childish insults to yourself...remember that got you banned on FM. Learn from that.
As far as "snapshots go", would you call these photographers snapshot shooters?
Cartier-Bresson
Robert Frank
Gary Winogrand
Robert Doisneau
Elliott Erwitt
They all carry a small light camera and shoot on the fly.
Oh...and by the way, I also do landscape photography where I do use bigger lenses, but still my Sony camera as it delivers wonderful landscape images. A few of my images follow. Maybe Johnny, rather than all your talking, lets see some of those award winning photos you have with your "league leading" lenses and cameras.
Hog, I didn't mean to insult you on the other post. I honestly consider most hand-held, street type shots to be "snapshots," compared to composing on a tripod, etc. (Doesn't mean they're not nice images; they just don't take that much to execute.)
Your landscape images are very nice. Not sure what this has to do with the pending Nikon D850 release, which was the original thread topic, but you always seem to find justification for turning every Nikon thread about yourself and Sony.
Even more interesting, you admit you're willing to use "bigger lenses" when it suits you ... yet constantly harp that others then they use larger lenses when it suits them.
Why can't you accept that it suits other people to use larger lenses than you ... to take photographs of subjects they enjoy?
Have you noticed your pathology of intruding yourself onto virtually every Nikon thread topic in order t preach for Sony. Why is this?
It would be like a micro-four-thirds enthusiast inserting his opinion of why people should use these smaller cameras, every time someone else tried to talk about the A7rII?
Hogloff, can you explain why a thread topic, discussing the pending Nikon D820/50, should be hijacked and turned into a Sony-centered cheerleading session based on what "you" do?
Do you think it would be possible, in the future, for you to refrain from posting your Sony opinion on every Nikon thread?
As for me posting some of my own photos, I am actually crafting some images right now ... 40-50 image-stacks. Will post in a bit (takes a long time to process).
These will be relevant, as they were taken with the D810, using Nikon glass. Stay tuned.
-
While I am waiting to process today's images, the following are something you could not possibly take with your kit.
- The first is an Acorn Woodpecker taken at 900mm. (D500 + 300mm + 2xTC.)
- The second is a Broad-Billed Hummer taken at 900mm (Same.)
- The third is an Arizona Mantid taken @ 1:1. (D810 + Voigtländer SL 125mm f/2.5 Macro)
- The fourth is a California Crab Spider taken @ 4:1 (23-image stack with a D810 + Nikkor AI-S 50mm f/1.2 lens, reversed, on a Nikon PB-6 Bellows )
-
Hog, I didn't mean to insult you on the other post. I honestly consider most hand-held, street type shots to be "snapshots," compared to composing on a tripod, etc. (Doesn't mean they're not nice images; they just don't take that much to execute.)
John, I'd like to believe you about not meaning your jab as an insult...but your behavior on FM precedes you and the added phase
"(While they are nice images, they require no tripod, no precision. Instead, they're just taken, handheld, while walking around as a tourist.)
Quite frankly, any camera/lens system could accomplish similar results. (A person could bring a compact, or micro-four-thirds, and travel even lighter than he is, while securing quite similar imagery.)"
nails it for me. Your view of my photos being able to be taken with a compact ( P&S ) is very insulting to say the least and shows your true colours. I'm done here...have no time for people that throw around insults.
-
John, I'd like to believe you about not meaning your jab as an insult...but your behavior on FM precedes you and the added phase
"(While they are nice images, they require no tripod, no precision. Instead, they're just taken, handheld, while walking around as a tourist.)
Quite frankly, any camera/lens system could accomplish similar results. (A person could bring a compact, or micro-four-thirds, and travel even lighter than he is, while securing quite similar imagery.)"
nails it for me. Your view of my photos being able to be taken with a compact ( P&S ) is very insulting to say the least and shows your true colours. I'm done here...have no time for people that throw around insults.
Your halo doesn't fit, Hog. You have been insulting me since the beginning.
And sorry, but I disagree. I think a micro-four-thirds could take your shots.
I know for a 100% fact that, with the "heavy" equipment I bring, 1) I could take any photo you took, using my rig, but 2) you couldn't take a single photo I took, using yours. That's the difference.
Remember, you started this comparison, not me. You intruded on here, calling me "Johnny," running your mouth, and (then) posting your images, challenging me, essentially.
If you don't like how the comparison worked out, then maybe pipe-down next time and stick to threads with like-minded folks.
I understand that your rig works for you, based on the standard focal lengths, but it would never work for me and the much heavier demands on what what I need my system to do.
My last post on this subject and ... to each his own.
-
Guys, just agree to disagree. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Guys, just agree to disagree. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
True enough.
Hey, I am willing to extend an olive branch to Hogloff and "forgive and forget" :)
Hogloff and I actually agree on several points, conceptually. I try to limit the weight I carry, where I can.
In keeping with this, Hogloff mentioned his lens portfolio:
Loxia 21mm - 394gm
Batis 25mm - 335gm
Sony 35mm - 120gm (it's actually 154 g)
Sony 55mm - 281gm
Batis 85mm - 452gm
Other than my super-telephoto lens, my own hiking/field lens portfolio consists of these:
- Nikkor 20mm AIS - 270 g
- Nikkor 28mm AIS - 250 g
- Nikkor 50mm AIS - 359 g
- Voightlander 125mm APO Macro - 690 g
Hog's lens weight adds-up to 1616 g.
My ancillary lens weight (aside from my super-telephoto) totals 1569 g ;)
So we both agree on "keeping things light," where possible. I just have needs beyond standard lens ranges.
I have lenses like the Zeiss 135 Apo f/2.0, and the Zeiss Distagon T 15mm, but I am not going to take these on a hike with me. I understand they are 'better' than my Nikkor AI-S lenses I do bring, but they are too heavy, and too fragile, to go where I need to go. I would bring the Zeisses to my mom's garden, a city park, etc., or some kind of controlled environment ... but I am not going to be hiking the sheer cliffs and sand-blown deserts with them, where I often find myself.
I have found that the small, light, portable Nikkor AI-S lenses take great "standard" shots ... as good as any but the highest-level stuff ... but they are more versatile. Because, if you flip them over, and add a Nikkor BR-2 reverse-ring, you can get some pretty cool "ultra-macro" shots with them as well. As mentioned earlier, I just uploaded 4 spider shots I took through 3 of these lenses. (No Otus could do this either, lol!)
The post can be found here (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=118780) ...
Cheers,
-
Frankly, the above spat is nothing but another manifestation of what's wrong with "amateur" photography, where the interest usually seems to be in the equipment.
In all my long years in the business, and some years felt much longer than others, I never met a fellow pro who either cared deeply about, or had very much interest in what others were using. If you were a Pentax freak why would you care if the guy across the street used Nikon, and vice versa? They were all good systems capable of delivering what you wanted; you were usually the problem if there was one.
Maybe it was all to do with the cameras: they were simple, uncomplicated beasts where all it took to make 'em shine was a brighter l¡ght behind them. If you changed systems, it was because you were earning enough to trade up to something that allowed you greater versatility within your field of reference. The only problem was that in money terms, outlay, you ended up buying the best several times over, because the gradual trading up was always more expensive than if you'd had had enough money to buy the best in the first instance. Credit was something experience led most of us to avoid.
We all recognized that, but remember, neither was there a photographic "art" scene in the UK in those distant days. Pretty landscapes were used to decorate calendars much in the manner of kittens and puppies; girls were used to sell almost anything that had no appeal of its own - note the overwhelming beauty of the common tyre and the birth of the Pirelli phenomenon where, I'm sure, some will maintain the girl is but a distraction. For them, that brief period where P6 tread patterns were used as justifictaion will forever reign supreme, whereas for myself, they mark the calendar's lowest period, its abysmal nadir. Cameras were usually bought because of the work they allowed. If you had to shoot buildings you would probably end up loving 4x5 and not think of Hasselblads or Nikons. Post F, almost none of us gave a thought to Leica rangefinders. If you were studio-based you used 'blads or Rollei and even then, more and more stuff was shot on 135 format because it offered continuity of action and the relatively uninterrupted flow of building up to a moment, an emotional peak.
However, that said, I have to admit that were one to ban discussions about equipment, I think pretty much all the Internet photographic forums would close through lack of interest.
Why? Because I honestly think that very few photogaphers care a damn about other photographer's photographs unless they see the other guy has an eye that coincides with their own, in which case there's an almost instant affinity.
Rob
-
Why? Because I honestly think that very few photogaphers care a damn about other photographer's photographs unless they see the other guy has an eye that coincides with their own, in which case there's an almost instant affinity.
Rob,
Maybe. Personally it is precisely when I see something different (from my work and/or from mainstream) that I am interested. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Rob,
I think you're right in a way: arguing over equipment is almost always the problem when things turn south, but I am not sure it is a uniquely amateur problem. It has more to do with the approach of the individual.
For example, as an amateur, I was hiking Joshua Tree a few months ago, during the "super-bloom," where all the desert flowers come out after the rains, and I came upon a man who was using a large format camera system mounted atop the most incredible tripod I had ever seen. He smiled when he saw me approach (with my Nikons, one with a super telephoto, the other with a wide-angle), and I was fascinated seeing the first large format photographer I have ever met in the wild. We stopped and said, "Hello." The man asked with honest curiosity, "What are you shooting?", and I asked the same of him, each discussing our goals with the other. At no point did I try to tell this man, "You should switch to what I am shooting, because it's lighter," and at no point did this man attempt to explain how much "better" his large format system was at producing large prints than what I was carrying. Instead, we just smiled at the recognition of each other as fellow photographers, we politely inquired as to each other's particulars, and then we parted company on very warm, positive, friendly note.
Another example was just this last Friday: I drove 2 hours to meet with a woman bird photographer, who is involved with rehabilitating the California Condor, and she acted as a guide for me (as we met in her neck of the woods). She shot the Canon 7D II and a light 400mm L lens, and I had my Nikons. At no time did I try to tell her "why" she should switch to what I was using, or vice versa; instead, we had a great time each trying to land shots with the tools we both brought to accomplish the same purpose, pointing out bird-sightings to each other the whole day. We great time together ... and we continued to enjoy each other's company over the weekend ... via the internet ... "liking" each other's images on FB. We plan to meet again in another week, out of a kindred spirit for birding, not over gear.
I am sure these meetings would have turned out much differently, had I pestered these people as to "how much better" my system was than theirs, or had they pestered me in a similar manner. However, by focusing on what we had in common, photography, both of these meetings were enriching.
Having said that, if we revisit the thread sequence, dealing with the Nikon D850 release, what you saw was one person telling Nikon shooters how their cameras are "bricks," and going on and on about how "he would never" carry these bricks again. My mistake was to engage him, rather than ignore him.
In closing, being curious about another photographer's gear is natural. Talking gear with another photographer can often be enlightening. However, trying to force your preferences on another, or scoff at their choices, compared to "yours," is not.
I will try to remember this going forward, so thanks.
-
Isn't that the difference btwn a physical encounter and wb discussions? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Isn't that the difference btwn a physical encounter and wb discussions? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Possibly. I think I have only encountered one person shooting a Sony in the field (Malibu cliffs). He had a little camera and a little lens. Convenient, yes, but also of limited application.
He didn't try to "convert me," lol. (In fact, I believe he realized his own limitations, as he kept asking me about my camera(s), and my lenses, now that I think about it.)
Which brings up another aspect of physical encounters ... and "smallness" of camera: I have never had anyone come up to me asking "what I shoot" ... when carrying a cell phone or a compact; no one cares.
However, when I carry "the rocket launcher" (lol), and if I happen to be in a spot that gets tourists, I get people coming up to me several times/day, curious, even awed at times, asking questions about what I am doing--genuinely and openly fascinated. In particular, other photographers, carrying "smaller" (usually entry-level) gear are those who are most likely to approach, who will often confess their "lens envy" ;D
Never once has a guy with a little camera approached me "thanking God" he didn't have that big lens ... invariably, it is exactly the opposite.
Why? Because when you carry serious gear, people know you're serious about what you're doing.
In the same fashion, I was fascinated by the large-format shooter in Joshua Tree. His gear looked very awkward, heavy, and much more difficult to take out in the middle of the desert than my own ... but I knew he was serious about what he was doing to spend that kind of money, and put out that kind of effort, to take his images.
I've met a ton of Canon/Nikon shooters, a few of the other brands, but that was my first encounter with a large format shooter ... and the last thought in my mind was "my gear is lighter than yours" ... my first thought was, "Damn, I'd be very interested in checking out his work."
I realize small, light, unobtrusive camera gear does have its place: unobtrusive street shots, touring, convenience ... but it really has no place with a wildlife or sports photographer: because you can't do much with it.
I don't carry a lot heavy gear because it makes my hikes more pleasant; I carry it because I want to capture wildlife images that "little gear" can't capture as effectively. I will cut weight where I can; but if I can't I won't. I want the shots.
-
Frankly, the above spat is nothing but another manifestation of what's wrong with "amateur" photography, where the interest usually seems to be in the equipment.
In all my long years in the business, and some years felt much longer than others, I never met a fellow pro who either cared deeply about, or had very much interest in what others were using. If you were a Pentax freak why would you care if the guy across the street used Nikon, and vice versa? They were all good systems capable of delivering what you wanted; you were usually the problem if there was one.
Maybe it was all to do with the cameras: they were simple, uncomplicated beasts where all it took to make 'em shine was a brighter l¡ght behind them. If you changed systems, it was because you were earning enough to trade up to something that allowed you greater versatility within your field of reference. The only problem was that in money terms, outlay, you ended up buying the best several times over, because the gradual trading up was always more expensive than if you'd had had enough money to buy the best in the first instance. Credit was something experience led most of us to avoid.
We all recognized that, but remember, neither was there a photographic "art" scene in the UK in those distant days. Pretty landscapes were used to decorate calendars much in the manner of kittens and puppies; girls were used to sell almost anything that had no appeal of its own - note the overwhelming beauty of the common tyre and the birth of the Pirelli phenomenon where, I'm sure, some will maintain the girl is but a distraction. For them, that brief period where P6 tread patterns were used as justifictaion will forever reign supreme, whereas for myself, they mark the calendar's lowest period, its abysmal nadir. Cameras were usually bought because of the work they allowed. If you had to shoot buildings you would probably end up loving 4x5 and not think of Hasselblads or Nikons. Post F, almost none of us gave a thought to Leica rangefinders. If you were studio-based you used 'blads or Rollei and even then, more and more stuff was shot on 135 format because it offered continuity of action and the relatively uninterrupted flow of building up to a moment, an emotional peak.
However, that said, I have to admit that were one to ban discussions about equipment, I think pretty much all the Internet photographic forums would close through lack of interest.
Why? Because I honestly think that very few photogaphers care a damn about other photographer's photographs unless they see the other guy has an eye that coincides with their own, in which case there's an almost instant affinity.
Rob
Hi Rob
In the vacuum of anticipation and hearsay, these types of threads often drift a bit till the big day comes... No harm done...
Yes our friends may need to say less to mean more... Their not too of topic though... Some great points were made...
Your comments would make for a great thread, maybe in a different section of the forum...
Now I have just added to the comments about comments... And so the cycle of the Internet continues... ;D
"Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear
Technical questions and answers about field equipment"
"Nikon D820 (more convincing rumor)This latest rumor of the replacement for the Nikon D810 looks pretty reasonable to me.
https://nikonrumors.com/2017/05/04/new-set-of-rumored-nikon-d820-camera-specifications.aspx/
Not all of what I want, but probably at least a baby-step forward.
Modify message
"
-
Frankly, the above spat is nothing but another manifestation of what's wrong with "amateur" photography, where the interest usually seems to be in the equipment.
Shame on the posters for enjoying themselves in the wrong way :-(
-
Quote:
"In all my long years in the business, and some years felt much longer than others, I never met a fellow pro who either cared deeply about, or had very much interest in what others were using. "
Rob
I don't think that's changed much Rob. When a photograph interests me I like to know what equipment was used because it sometimes tells me something about how the photographer works--medium format, 35mm for example.
-
Guillermo,
I am sorry you feel it necessary to call me out on this. It's your call. I will assume you are an expert on the matter, and you thus have all the facts. I will stand down on my opinion. You are correct the A7rII is superior to the D810 totally, and I guess I am just ignorant on how to use these cameras since I found different results than those that you found. Net, the A7RII for me was not what I expected, and I returned it. However that fact that your opinion varies from mine, IMO is no reason to assume I am not able to test such cameras on my own and thus don't have all the facts. That is a bit of an insult.
Enjoy the A7RII.
Paul Caldwell
Paul, I am sorry if you consider an insult that I trust more reliable websites such as DxOMark or Dpreview than you, but if someone you don't know says something which contradicts trusted sources, common sense dictates to be on the other side. I wouldn't be annoyed if you said the same thing about me.
Regarding the images you are showing, this can be quite subjetive but you said the Sony had excessive noise at ISO800 while the images show a very similar amount of noise, so both should be considered excessive or both aceptable. I am sorry to disagree with you in the finely tuned threshold you set.
I cannot enjoy the A7R II since I don't have one.
Regards
-
If rumors are to be believed, then the D820 may be announced on July 25th, which would be marking the 100 years of Nikon.
It will be interesting to see how opinion split as to whether it marks the end of the first 100 years of Nikon or the beginning of the next 100. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If rumors are to be believed, then the D820 may be announced on July 25th, which would be marking the 100 years of Nikon.
It will be interesting to see how opinion split as to whether it marks the end of the first 100 years of Nikon or the beginning of the next 100. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
No doubt it marks both?
-
No doubt it marks both?
The web buzz these days is very much focused on the first dimension, don't you think?
Cheers,
Bernard