Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: yoni on January 31, 2009, 04:09:10 pm
-
One element not addressed in the article which muddies the issue further is value in used cameras. Because of the flattening of the quality curve, last year's camera is only marginally inferior to the current one. However the price can often fall below 1/3. One can buy a used 1ds2, for example, at around $2200. Not a bad quality/value ratio. Even today's generation is quite heavily discounted given the financial environment we are in and a used 1ds3 can now be found for $4700. Adding this to the mix greatly expand our choices.
-
Very interesting essay and my two cents (or rather two points) are
1) Being an early adopter is indeed expensive. Also the incremental 'quality' you get by always upgrading to the latest and greatest is probably the smallest step if you do it every time. So I agree with the 2nd hand point of yoni and for me even my current body is the cheapest second hand I don't have to buy I'll probably just upgrade every 3rd or 4th generation to make a big leap. But for me it's pure hobby and I can imagine that pro's can't afford to do that.
2) I invest some of the money I save by the above strategy in better lenses. Something I read elsewhere: DSLR's are for a year (or 2), lenses are forever. I believe in the end a better lens will make more impact on the picture IQ than the body (and proper technique of course).
-
Good point, Yoni. I found Michael's article very thought provoking. I'm sure he will be addressing additional points as the series continues. A few points that occurred to me:
1. Lens technology is advancing also. A couple decades ago, a popularly priced zoom lens was likely to be truly terrible in both build quality and optical quality. Now a consumer zoom can be a decent lens, and even a few of the super zoom lenses offer respectable performance. Yes, there is still a measurable difference between the consumer lens and the finest pro glass, but as with cameras, the price gap is large while the quality gap is shrinking. Add to that the facts that post-processing software can now correct for many lens defects and high ISO sensors compensate for many of the advantages of fast glass, and one can see that the value equation is changing.
2. When comparing the value of a camera like the Canon G10 to current DSLRs, much of the discussion naturally centers on image quality versus price. But one ought also to consider that the small size of the cheaper camera is actually an important positive factor for many photographers. If you need a camera to fit in your pocket, you might actually be willing to pay more for a smaller size.
3. Ultimately, value is very personal. If I regularly print at sizes of 20 by 30 inches and larger, a large sensor may have great value to me, but if I never print larger than 8 by 10, then there isn't a camera on the market that is lacking in resolution for me and there is no value whatsoever from more megapixels.
-
Yoni, interesting point about buying used gear. I bought (at different times and excellent discounts) a used 1D Mark II and 1Ds Mark II when their previous owners upgraded. Both were lightly used (the 1Ds2 only had about 3,000 clicks).
True, neither are now at the top of their respective categories. But as a serious amateur, they both serve me well and I am certainly getting good value.
Paul
-
Very interesting article and puts a fresh perspective on things. Eagerly awaiting the rest of the series.
-
Very interesting article and puts a fresh perspective on things. Eagerly awaiting the rest of the series.
I don't know about the fresh perspective, to me it's just common sense, something which has been lacking in approaching the current offerings in the digital world.
-
I don't know about the fresh perspective, to me it's just common sense, something which has been lacking in approaching the current offerings in the digital world.
Common sense is anything but common! Though Michael certainly has plenty.
Yoni's point re 2nd hand stuff is also a good one.
-
The one glaring omission I found with the article is the quality / value of a camera system.
As MR writes, he thinks the A900 is a great camera so he proceeded to buy it and a few lenses. Doesn't buying the extra lenses he didn't have raise the effectual price of the A900 by quite a few thousand? Given that MR already owns a few Nikon lenses, it would have probably been cheaper to buy the D3x rather than investing in a whole new system. In this scenario, I am certain the D3x's value would trump that of the A900, notwithstanding it's 8k price tag. (I understand the point about testing, etc. but this is looking at it from a straight value perspective.)
I think without taking lenses and their quality, price and value into consideration, one cannot make claims about which camera is better. Sure, the A900 or D3x might take better pictures than my Canon 1's, but I can't use my lenses on either, rendering them completely use-, and value-, less to me.
Additionally, while I may get better quality from the Nikons, their lenses are typically much more expensive than their Canon counterparts, further widening any price / performance gap.
Cameras are, after all, an integrated system. Without taking into account the lenses and other essential accessories, giving value numbers to bodies from different manufacturers is getting us nowhere.
If we were to try and create a system-wide value chart, one would have to consider the gear s/he already has, how much it is worth and what the resulting funds will finance. After all, not all of us can afford the latest gear.
-
The one glaring omission I found with the article is the quality / value of a camera system.
Agree it is a point not covered yet in the first essay, however don't think it's a glaring omission. The point being that once you take the resale value of the system into account the playing field is significantly flattened. Only if you degrade your uncompatible lenses to paperweights the economics of switching systems is prohibitively expensive. However in my experience quality lenses keep their value quite well.
Edit: Changed better reflect what I meant to say
-
It's impossible to take into consideration what lenses and other equipment readers might have, so it's far from a glaring omission.
The individual is left to weigh in those factors. How much return on selling current equipment versus the cost of replacement for either system (perhaps zero for an existing brand). $8,000- for a Nikon compared to $3,000- for a Sony, for example, plus the resale of existing equipment, allows quite some room before the Sony system approaches th cost of the new Nikon body (assuming you don't need to upgrade anything else to take advantage of the new body).
Ultimately, though, whilst entire system costs must come into it for those with existing equipment, there's no one but the individual who can know the entire equation as it applies to them. With a system that ranks as Michael has suggested, you can at least then have in mind the relative position of the two bodies you might be looking at and then decide whether at any given point one system is better value than another. Once there is a method, a formula if you like, for rating value, then you can change the input value to reflect system change costs (making it net with the resale of existing gear) and derive a quotient that suggests a "break even" point. With that, you can make an informed decision on which system is the best value and take the into consideration with the other factors that affect an individual's choices.
But given this is a proposed series of essays from Michael, I think to call it a glaring omission is at the very least premature, if not completely wrong :-) It's a good point to consider system value, but I think you need to view the proposed method with an open and prospective mind to see how it can still be useful when investigating system comparitive values.
-
Okay, first off, hello LL forums. Been lurking for a bit, but I thought I'd stick my head in. Second, sorry for my first post to be so argumentative. Now..........
This whole "system value" talk sounds like desperate justification to me. Of course if you have $15,000 worth of Canon glass you're probably not going to jump ship (even though you could likely sell all your gear quite easily and retain much of your original investment), but to say that assessing the value of a product based on the.....value of a product is somehow a glaring omission is silly double-talk.
Also, consider the fact you could buy:
CZ 24-70mm
50mm f/1.4
CZ 135mm f/1.8
70-300mm G
two HVL-58 AM Flashes
A900
for less than the price of a D3x. I believe that is the majority of a "system" in and of itself.
I am aware the D3x is (probably) an all around better camera than the A900, but please don't try to defend the Nikon pricing by putting this artificial "system value" idea in there. This was clearly a comparison of different cameras aimed at prospective buyers.
-
I feel I must chime in here and sound a small alarm bell. Please, please can we stop using the DxO ratings to compare between different camera systems? Madness lies in those charts, madness, I tell you!
First of all, nobody really knows how the final algorithm for the DxO rating is weighted or derived. So, from a simple First Rules basis - don't make decisions based on statistics that we don't understand. And I don't think anyone but DxO knows how they come up with their final rankings.
Secondly, the DxO scores may be fine to compare within brands - use it to look at the various Nikon cams, for example, but I think one can not rely on DxO scores to tell you much about how different makes of cameras compare. And here is one reason why: DxO measures noise, among other things, and these noise stats go into their final rankings. But Nikon sensors process out chrominance noise on-chip before the RAW image is outputted - other makers do not do this. This is an inherent bias, and there are most likely others. DxO rewards Nikon's strategy in their rankings, but this does not tell you what we need to know, which leads to...
Thirdly, the DxO rankings do not tell us which sensors/cameras can produce the best images.What they tell us is only which cameras produce the best DxO scores. In fact, Michael actually pointed this out in a tangential way when he spoke of the remarkable prowess of the Canon G10 compared to a medium-format digital back under certain conditions. If one was to look at the DxO chart, the G10 has one of the lowest overall scores on the chart, yet its IQ, under the right conditions, is comparable to the the highest scoring camera. This alone tells us that there is a huge disconnect between a Dxo score and the actual IQ potential of a camera.
The Nikon cams generally test relatively higher than the Canons because of their preRAW processing, but this does not tell us whether a Canon 5D or a D700, or a D3x vs a Sony 900 will produce the best images after optimal PP, which is how we use these systems, after all. And speaking of actual use, each of us has different ecological niche for our cameras. If I had a Canon G10, I would use it for landscapes without huge dynamic range requirements. That is, in the cameras sweet spot. We all would do this for any and all of the cameras we use. And this is natural, expected, and completely screws up the statistical significance of the DxO rankings.
So, I don't think we can rely on the DxO numbers to simplify our decisions as tempting as that may seem. We still need to test the actual cameras in the field, process the images, and make decisions based on a more challenging dimensional map than the one provided by DxO.
-
Gee – did you get a sneak peek at my article coming on Tuesday?
Michael
-
It is a fine article Michael, and while I am sure we are all 'gear junkies' to some extent the onward march of 'having to have' or 'needing to have' requires just this sort of analysis.
All to often it seems the camera gear forums are run along the lines of the 'Ferengi Rules of Acquisition', and with latest being mightiest in any argument/polite discussion. I opted out of one big manufacturers system for a little manufacturer because the gear was better made, smaller, higher quality lenses, and all weatherproof. The combination of these factors mean it gets carted around and used more, and that for me counts as an increase in value over what I had, despite the monetary loss in changing systems. So 'value' isn't necessarily just buying the next cheapest camera that does a similar job, but also the level of intensive use any camera can be put to over and above other cameras. Its kind of whether you buy a tool or ornament type of debate, where a G10 carried in the pocket is used for making more photo's than the 5dMk11 at home on the shelf, so which camera has more value to the photographer (assuming they aren't a pro)?
Steve
-
This is a very interesting debate but it, very politely, ignores one significant element and that is the desirability of cameras as objects other than picture taking mechanisms. When a photographer,amateur or professional, buys a camera or a camera system the desirability of the camera and its technology has an effect on his decision to purchase notwithstanding the apparent or real gain in performance. If one were to rank cameras solely on the basis of objective desirability and then compared that list with one ranked in terms of image quality what an interesting list that would be.
Show me that person who does not admire and wish to possess, simply for its functional beauty, a Leica M3 and I will show you someone who is uninterested in the technology of picture taking. Where does that take us? It means that those photographers who have the means to indulge their appreciation of the camera as an object can and do buy the most technically interesting and well-designed systems and I would suggest that a significant proportion of sales of high end systems are to that market. That is not to say that they are not good photographers - the two issues are separate and distinct other than the coincidence of obtaining the best performance one can for the money available.
Michael raises a challenging and most interesting point. To be blunt 95% of all photographers needs can be met with a Sony camera and a few lenses costing, as one contributer points out, less than a 1DsMkIII or a D3X - I agree totally with that.
Why then do I own a $20,000 of Canon equipment and $50,000 of Hasselblad equipment? At the risk of bring some opprobium down on my shoulders I would say three things:-
1. I like them as objects.
2. I can afford to indulge myself.
3. I want the best image quality that I can buy given items 1 & 2.
It seems to me that many photographers disguise their pleasure in ownership and collection of cameras as objects with all sorts of high-sounding reasons.
Let's just be honest - we like these gadgets!
-
Speak for yourself.
I thought I did!
Okay some of us are honest enough to admit we like these gadgets, some of us aren't, and some of us just use them as tools - no problem with that at all. Each to his own. All I am saying is that this debate is not necessarily exclusively about the image quality and utility of the camera or system but its desirability as an object in its own right. An interest in the camera as an object and an ability to produce wonderful images are not mutually exclusive no more than a disinterested attitude to photographic technology is a barrier to the same result (although in the digital age that would be a little short-sighted perhaps). This is not necessarily a fashionable opinion but it doesn't make it any less true.
-
I feel I must chime in here and sound a small alarm bell. Please, please can we stop using the DxO ratings to compare between different camera systems? Madness lies in those charts, madness, I tell you!
First of all, nobody really knows how the final algorithm for the DxO rating is weighted or derived. So, from a simple First Rules basis - don't make decisions based on statistics that we don't understand. And I don't think anyone but DxO knows how they come up with their final rankings.
Secondly, the DxO scores may be fine to compare within brands - use it to look at the various Nikon cams, for example, but I think one can not rely on DxO scores to tell you much about how different makes of cameras compare. And here is one reason why: DxO measures noise, among other things, and these noise stats go into their final rankings. But Nikon sensors process out chrominance noise on-chip before the RAW image is outputted - other makers do not do this. This is an inherent bias, and there are most likely others. DxO rewards Nikon's strategy in their rankings, but this does not tell you what we need to know, which leads to...
Thirdly, the DxO rankings do not tell us which sensors/cameras can produce the best images.What they tell us is only which cameras produce the best DxO scores. In fact, Michael actually pointed this out in a tangential way when he spoke of the remarkable prowess of the Canon G10 compared to a medium-format digital back under certain conditions. If one was to look at the DxO chart, the G10 has one of the lowest overall scores on the chart, yet its IQ, under the right conditions, is comparable to the the highest scoring camera. This alone tells us that there is a huge disconnect between a Dxo score and the actual IQ potential of a camera.
The Nikon cams generally test relatively higher than the Canons because of their preRAW processing, but this does not tell us whether a Canon 5D or a D700, or a D3x vs a Sony 900 will produce the best images after optimal PP, which is how we use these systems, after all. And speaking of actual use, each of us has different ecological niche for our cameras. If I had a Canon G10, I would use it for landscapes without huge dynamic range requirements. That is, in the cameras sweet spot. We all would do this for any and all of the cameras we use. And this is natural, expected, and completely screws up the statistical significance of the DxO rankings.
So, I don't think we can rely on the DxO numbers to simplify our decisions as tempting as that may seem. We still need to test the actual cameras in the field, process the images, and make decisions based on a more challenging dimensional map than the one provided by DxO.
Exceptionally well said - I have had an issue with DXO rankings floating around in my head for a while now [although I still beleive there is value to be had in DXO] and could not put my finger on exactly how the whole picture came together from a holistic real use perspective.
You have succesfully articulated it for me.
Thank you.
-
Also, consider the fact you could buy:
CZ 24-70mm
50mm f/1.4
CZ 135mm f/1.8
70-300mm G
two HVL-58 AM Flashes
A900
for less than the price of a D3x. I believe that is the majority of a "system" in and of itself.
I am aware the D3x is (probably) an all around better camera than the A900, but please don't try to defend the Nikon pricing by putting this artificial "system value" idea in there. This was clearly a comparison of different cameras aimed at prospective buyers.
An interesting thought might be: right now this is true. What might the scenario look like, if, in a years time, Nikon has a D700x (or whatever) that has the same imaging system/quality of the D3X at a prosumer price? Then the Sony might not be the value leader. And who knows what Canon will do next, etc. The value equation certainly will be changing all the time.
As a Nikon owner I look at it this way: Bodies come and go, but excellent glass lasts a while. While sure, it would have been nice if Nikon had gone the 5d-II route and introduced a more affordable prosumer body that fits my needs, they didn't - and as a Nikon user, I know that typically Nikon goes "flagship first, trickle down the technology second". So while at this moment in time for a new buyer the Sony system might make more sense (unless they needed some lenses that Sony simply doesn't have - and this is a point that has to be made I think), the equation might change in 8 months (or whatever), and for someone who has a large investment in Nikon glass (I do), changing systems just for one body that's popular today, without a clear and very compelling business need, doesn't make that much sense. Let's be honest - as we progress through the years, there *always* will be something better - always. Unless you're wealthy enough to constantly upgrade, at some point you have to be willing to hop off the train and be comfortable with what you've got. I may only be using cruddy old 12mp D2X and D300's now, certainly not anything as exciting as the 24mp class bodies, but you know what? - I'm producing 16x20" prints - the largest size I commonly print - that are superior to anything I ever did with 35mm and easily in the same league of prints I produced from 6x6 negs/chromes from back in the old days. I'll certainly upgrade at some point, but at my own pace. I put the money into the best lenses first (and some of them Sony, for example, has absolutely no counterpart in their system, thus severely limiting them as a choice should I have wanted to switch brands anyway)
Note I'm not really disagreeing with you - I rudely just inserted a general response to things into your end of the thread here (sorry!) and I agree with what most folks have discussed so far. The only thing I'd add is that I think print size is very important to the overall equation. For someone producing 8x10's and an occasional 11x14, I seriously doubt their customer could tell between prints made from the D90 and the D3X (or Sony, Canon, etc).
-m
-
Interesting write up, and who could disagree with the proposition that good value can be had cheaper than ever before in the digital world.
Now I guess that an assessment of value vs quality should be based on a sufficiently wide set of images/usage. Are a few A2 prints from a given assignment a good base for judgement? I personally don't think so:
- Some scenes are kinder than others to lesser imagers (because their DR is either narrow or on the contrary too wide for both imagers for instance) - which mostly explains the G10 vs P45+ results and could explain Antartica's results too (since many scenes appear to have a rather low DR in them),
- A2 was already an achievable size for a well handled 12 MP file, and differences between 20MP+ bodies in terms of detail are bound to be rather small at that print size (I bet that P65+files are also not that different at that size)
- It takes time and in depth usage to optimize one's usage of a camera (exposure during shooting, best raw converter/best settings,...), the D3x for instance has to be shot for highlights (and the histogram can be relied on very accurately to do so) but tremendous flexibility is available with shadows recovery, there is no way to figure that out on a first trip with the camera, it is for instance pretty different compared to a D3,
- Things go wrong sometimes and not all images are shot perfectly,
Referring to one example Michael mentioned in his essay, based on my own comparison of several tens of raw files, I feel that the D3x is more than 10% better than the A900. The difference in base ISO DR alone is good enough for me although better micro-detail would probably be emphasized by others also. This being said, I am not sure that my usage of the A900 files is optimal (I converted them with C1 4.6).
In fact, my personal feeling is that there is as much difference between the D3x and the A900 as there was between a ZD/P25+ and 1ds2 for instance. So where you draw the line and start to decide that there is enough value to justify the gap of price really depends on everyone's priorities at a given moment in time.
Finally, why stop at the comparison between the A900 and the D3x? Once stitching becomes part of the equation, the A900/D3x becomes a two order of magnitude better value proposition than the P65+ and these bodies are much better stitching options than anything medium format for pretty obvious reasons. a 380MP stitch from D3x as a quick example:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3440/3190597747_cdab89e010_o.jpg)
Michael, would you still be selecting a A900 over the D3x if you didn't have anything better to shoot with (like a P45+ or P65+) to produce fine art prints?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, because I don't buy into your premise that the D3x's IQ is that much better than that of the A900, except at higher ISOs.
I'll be writing more on this in the days ahead, so I'll keep my powder dry for the moment.
Michael
-
Secondly, the DxO scores may be fine to compare within brands - use it to look at the various Nikon cams, for example, but I think one can not rely on DxO scores to tell you much about how different makes of cameras compare. And here is one reason why: DxO measures noise, among other things, and these noise stats go into their final rankings. But Nikon sensors process out chrominance noise on-chip before the RAW image is outputted - other makers do not do this. This is an inherent bias, and there are most likely others. DxO rewards Nikon's strategy in their rankings, but this does not tell you what we need to know, which leads to...
I'm not sure I can follow this train of thought. Regardless if the DxO results are accurate or not, or can be supported by or correlated to subjective evidence or not, what does what any manufacturer do with its sensor output before comiting to a raw file have anything to do with it? DxO purport to measure the camera raw output not the output of an individual element in the camera processing chain. All camera makers try to improve the camera's output at many points in the processing chain. What's wrong about that and why should we care (unless we are camera engineers)?
Am I missing something here?
(And BTW how do YOU know what exactly Nikon do and at what level in their processing chain? Do you have any insider info you can share with us? Can you explain exactly the difference between chroma and luma noise before the demosaicing process takes place?)
-
Yes, because I don't buy into your premise that the D3x's IQ is that much better than that of the A900, except at higher ISOs.
I'll be writing more on this in the days ahead, so I'll keep my powder dry for the moment.
We must be seeing different things then.
Interestingly, I find the D3x's image quality most remarkable at ISO100. At ISO 200-640, the D3x and A900 are much closer than at ISO100 or above 800.
For what it is worth my premise is backed up by several other sources including DxO tests.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But have you tried the A900 at ISO 100?
Michael
-
But have you tried the A900 at ISO 100?
Michael
Good point. On the other hand, what matters to me is the best possible achievable quality. Whether it is at ISO100 or 200 is not that relevant.
Everybody is obviously different, but I personnally rarelly shoot serious stuff without a tripod, and ISO 100 is rarely a problem. I never had a problem shooting my ZD at ISO50, except when that took me to exposure times that the ZD was not comfortable with. Since the D3x is also excellent with long exposures, ISO 100 is perfectly fine. ISO200 on the D3x is still very good, but I would not call it outstanding compared to the competition.
As a side note, I am very happy about my new Gitzo GT5531s, that is what I call a robust tripod!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Referring to one example Michael mentioned in his essay, based on my own comparison of several tens of raw files, I feel that the D3x is more than 10% better than the A900. The difference in base ISO DR alone is good enough for me although better micro-detail would probably be emphasized by others also. This being said, I am not sure that my usage of the A900 files is optimal (I converted them with C1 4.6).
In fact, my personal feeling is that there is as much difference between the D3x and the A900 as there was between a ZD/P25+ and 1ds2 for instance. So where you draw the line and start to decide that there is enough value to justify the gap of price really depends on everyone's priorities at a given moment in time.
Bernard
Capture1 4.6 is very good for the a900.
Anyway it all depends by what kind of files from the a900 you plaid with.
I would be very surprised to see any 1% advantage on the d3x ( at lower ISOs), even less a 10% advantage, considering that the nikon lenses cannot deliver anything of that magnitude compared to lenses by Sony, Zeiss and some Minolta as well.
Not mentioning the classic "35mm Nikon look", that will never go away even with a million megapixels sensor. Unless nikon will redesign their lenses and improve coating and aperture blades.
-
For what it is worth my premise is backed up by several other sources including DxO tests.
Cheers,
Bernard
Exactly.
-
Capture1 4.6 is very good for the a900.
Anyway it all depends by what kind of files from the a900 you plaid with.
I would be very surprised to see any 1% advantage on the d3x ( at lower ISOs), even less a 10% advantage, considering that the nikon lenses cannot deliver anything of that magnitude compared to lenses by Sony, Zeiss and some Minolta as well.
Not mentioning the classic "35mm Nikon look", that will never go away even with a million megapixels sensor. Unless nikon will redesign their lenses and improve coating and aperture blades.
Dude, to be very frank - commentary such as the above with it's obvious brand bashing isn't really helpful to anyone and isn't pertinent to the topic at hand. Take this kind of crap over to dpreview. The forums here used to be about discussion, about differences - sure, but discussion without constant brand bashing and with respect to the various systems out there, but as of late, I've seen far more brand bashing and childish behavior than I've seen over in dpreview in several years. Luckily the other boards here besides the Cameras/Lenses/Shooting board still offer a lot of value. This one really no longer does.
-m
-
I would be very surprised to see any 1% advantage on the d3x ( at lower ISOs), even less a 10% advantage, considering that the nikon lenses cannot deliver anything of that magnitude compared to lenses by Sony, Zeiss and some Minolta as well.
Even if that were true (and it is clearly not), don't forget that many third party lenses can be used on Nikon bodies. I have had excellent results with the Zeiss 100mm f2.0 recently. The funniest part being that that Zeiss 100mm f2.0, one of the best lenses ever produced, is not availble in Sony mount.
Minolta and Zeiss are making excellent lenses for sure, but I see nothing justifying the sweeping statements you are making above. The A900 samples files I got were shot with the supposedely legendary Minolta 50mm macro lens, and they are indeed good, but I am not sure to understand what the excitement is about. The only rigorous test I have seen comparing the Zeiss 24-70f2.8 to its Nikon and Canon competitors reached the conclusion that the Zeiss was behind the Japanese lenses both in performance and usability.
Have you ever shot with any of the recent N coated Nikkors? Most of the lenses I have been using on the D3x belong to that group and they are excellent.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The only rigorous test I have seen comparing the Zeiss 24-70f2.8 to its Nikon and Canon competitors reached the conclusion that the Zeiss was behind the Japanese lenses both in performance and usability.
Cheers,
Bernard
Okay, so the guy you're responding to is certainly trolling quite a bit, but could you please give me a link to the review? There have been dozens of reviews/tests done on the Zeiss and I can't find one that says it's "behind the Japanese" in either performance or usability.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct...uct/1181/cat/83 (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1181/cat/83)
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/47-sony-al...2470_28?start=2 (http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/47-sony-alpha-aps-c/380-zeiss_za_2470_28?start=2)
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5232/...-za-ssm-af.html (http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5232/lens-test-sony-24-70mm-f28-zeiss-vario-sonnar-t-za-ssm-af.html)
http://www.optyczne.pl/112.11-Test_obiekty...dsumowanie.html (http://www.optyczne.pl/112.11-Test_obiektywu-Sony_Carl_Zeiss_Vario_Sonnar_24-70_mm_f_2.8_T*_SSM_Podsumowanie.html)
-
Okay, so the guy you're responding to is certainly trolling quite a bit, but could you please give me a link to the review? There have been dozens of reviews/tests done on the Zeiss and I can't find one that says it's "behind the Japanese" in either performance or usability.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct...uct/1181/cat/83 (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1181/cat/83)
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/47-sony-al...2470_28?start=2 (http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/47-sony-alpha-aps-c/380-zeiss_za_2470_28?start=2)
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5232/...-za-ssm-af.html (http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5232/lens-test-sony-24-70mm-f28-zeiss-vario-sonnar-t-za-ssm-af.html)
http://www.optyczne.pl/112.11-Test_obiekty...dsumowanie.html (http://www.optyczne.pl/112.11-Test_obiektywu-Sony_Carl_Zeiss_Vario_Sonnar_24-70_mm_f_2.8_T*_SSM_Podsumowanie.html)
Sure I'm trolling, yet It will be hard to prove me wrong.
-
Dude, to be very frank - commentary such as the above with it's obvious brand bashing isn't really helpful to anyone and isn't pertinent to the topic at hand. Take this kind of crap over to dpreview. The forums here used to be about discussion, about differences - sure, but discussion without constant brand bashing and with respect to the various systems out there, but as of late, I've seen far more brand bashing and childish behavior than I've seen over in dpreview in several years. Luckily the other boards here besides the Cameras/Lenses/Shooting board still offer a lot of value. This one really no longer does.
-m
You mean the above, or the above, above.
I was definitively harsh on my comments.
Yet, I do not get why it is so well accepted to say that one system is 10% better than another, based on files downloaded from the web, and not having tested extensively both on real photography. Actually, not even touched one of the systems. If you want to talk about crap, there you should go.
At least I say what I say, after having used and grown up with Nikon lenses for 25 years.
-
Okay, so the guy you're responding to is certainly trolling quite a bit, but could you please give me a link to the review? There have been dozens of reviews/tests done on the Zeiss and I can't find one that says it's "behind the Japanese" in either performance or usability.
Actually I am speaking of 2 reviews published in paper magazines Chasseur d'Image and Reponse Photo, widely believed to be 2 of the best 5 publications in Europe.
All their tests are done using DxO tools and their objectivity is unquestioned as far as I know.
- on the quality side: they loved the Zeiss 24-70f2.8 on the A700, but found it to be lacking in the corners on the A900. They write that it is an excellent lens still, but it is not best in class.
- on the usability: they are refering specifically to the fact that on both the Canon and nikon 24-70, zooming out affects the position of the inner barrel relative to the lens hood, which offers much better flare protection on the long end (70 mm). On the Zeiss, the whole lens front moves forward together with the hood that therefore ends up being very short so as to be able to cope with the wide angle position.
Unfortunately, I don't think that they have web versions of their reviews, but you can order past issues from the site www.photim.com.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Sure I'm trolling, yet It will be hard to prove me wrong.
You are prefectly entitled to prefer the results delivered by Zeiss/Minolta lenses. Either way, you are happy about the gear you shoot with and it matches your needs, so I guess that everything is fine with you.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Exactly.
Any evidence showing that their findings are not correct? I find it pretty amusing that many a Sony A900 user (I don't know if you were one of them) was referring to DxO results when they were showing one month ago that the A900 had the best DR around, it seems that DxO has lost credibility amongst that circle after the release of the D3x tests.
It reminds me of the DPreview Canon forum reactions when Michael started to use a D3. He was a god when he was shooting primarily Canon, and had become an awful person the day he started to shoot a Nikon body.
In the mean time I'll keep taking pictures with my D3x, I will at least try to maximize the value of my poor investement.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3477/3243570197_fdc919a4b5_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Show me that person who does not admire and wish to possess, simply for its functional beauty, a Leica M3 and I will show you someone who is uninterested in the technology of picture taking.
It may have been an important camera, but I have zero interest in owning one. Weird thing is that I am interested in the technology of picture despite having zero interest in Leicas. I always think of them as pretentious status symbols that are massively overated. But hey, that just my opinion. ;-)
Let's just be honest - we like these gadgets!
On the other hand some of use simply want tools that do a good job.
-
When is enough enough? : It's enough when I read one more post about which is better, the D3x or the A900
I'm not interested "who's d**k is bigger?". I think Michael is trying to make a different point in his essay.
-
When is enough enough? : It's enough when I read one more post about which is better, the D3x or the A900
I'm not interested "who's d**k is bigger?". I think Michael is trying to make a different point in his essay.
Or maybe it's enough when you have a Phase P65+ .
-
It may have been an important camera, but I have zero interest in owning one. Weird thing is that I am interested in the technology of picture despite having zero interest in Leicas. I always think of them as pretentious status symbols that are massively overated. But hey, that just my opinion. ;-)
On the other hand some of use simply want tools that do a good job.
Yet sitting in a fox hole in Vietnam I'm sure many photographers felt the value of their Leica M3 was reliability and compactness, rather than as a pretentious status symbol. And I'm sure the soldiers around him didn't give a cuss about whether it was a Pentax or a Leica either. I doubt Cartier Bresson felt he was using a status symbol, but thought it was the best and most valuable tool to do his job. I could go on with examples. Consigning an M3 as a pretentious status symbol is a severe case of knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing ;-)
Steve
-
Yet sitting in a fox hole in Vietnam I'm sure many photographers felt the value of their Leica M3 was reliability and compactness, rather than as a pretentious status symbol. And I'm sure the soldiers around him didn't give a cuss about whether it was a Pentax or a Leica either. I doubt Cartier Bresson felt he was using a status symbol, but thought it was the best and most valuable tool to do his job. I could go on with examples. Consigning an M3 as a pretentious status symbol is a severe case of knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing ;-)
Steve
I also agree with jjj on this point. The Leica M8 is like a designer shirt. You are paying a premium for the name. There are better and more affordable tools available, better on balance, although the Leica might have one or two features of 'niche' value, such as a lack of an AA filter.
-
When is enough enough? : It's enough when I read one more post about which is better, the D3x or the A900
I'm not interested "who's d**k is bigger?". I think Michael is trying to make a different point in his essay.
Obviously it is, but the discussion to be relevant has to be related to real world examples doesn't it?
Since nobody really believes that the results of the G10 and P45+ are impossible to distinguish, cameras with closer peformance and different prices need to be compared for this essay to be more than a theoretical write up.
Michael brought up the D3x vs A900 case and the whole essay orbitates around this example. From this standpoint, discussing the accuracy of his assesement of the performance gap is relevant.
What does 10% mean? When the P25+ offered one stop more DR than the 1ds2 (technically less than 10%), did all the photographers who agreed to spend 25.000 US$ on a P25+ agree that that one stop DR was only a 10% increase in performance? Did Michael not seeing such a gap in his tests of the D3x/A900 mean that there is no difference of performance between the bodies, or that the testing ground was not suitable to show the differences?
Discussion on global warming would have a lot less impact without data backing up the claims of the scientists...
The person who speaks here is not the D3x owner trying to convince the world that he bought the right toy, but the remains of the scientist I once was.
Anyway, I'll refrain from posting more on this topic and will enjoy stitching with my over-expensive camera instead.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3128/3244419526_4ae920f953_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am eagerly looking forward to the next of Michael's articles, which are making a realistic and practical comparison of these three bodies.
Remember that camera of it's time, the Kodak 14N (which Kodak informed us was not a Nikon body but a completely new design?) but accepted
all our Nikon legacy lenses. I cannot help feeling that if- hypothetically- Sony were now suddenly able to produce a 900N there would be many
defectors from Nikon bodies.
If Nikon cannot produce a stripped down 700x at a price fairly near to that of the Sony and Canon soon, many may reluctantly decide to switch
their lens collection, and the boat will have been missed.
John Kay
-
Yet sitting in a fox hole in Vietnam I'm sure many photographers felt the value of their Leica M3 was reliability and compactness, rather than as a pretentious status symbol. And I'm sure the soldiers around him didn't give a cuss about whether it was a Pentax or a Leica either. I doubt Cartier Bresson felt he was using a status symbol, but thought it was the best and most valuable tool to do his job. I could go on with examples. Consigning an M3 as a pretentious status symbol is a severe case of knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing ;-)
Steve
Correct! I use my M3 almost every day.
-
Even though I raise (or support Bernard on) one quibble with Michael on the value status of the D3x, a camera that never ceases to amaze me in the thousand-plus high detail landscapes I have shot with it, I agree wholeheartedly with his fundamental point that image quality has gotten so good that camera manufacturers will have a much harder time selling us upgrades. The D3x actually supports that point, by replacing (much more expensive) low-end medium format for many applications. Every previous DSLR I have owned, I have had some issue with image quality - something (usually dynamic range) I wished was better. The D3x is good enough for me - I'll shoot this camera until the day the shutter dies. For photographers who don't print as big as 24x36, the "good enough" point is reached somewhere below the D3x, while exotic applications may demand yet more, while the basic point remains - "good enough" cameras are available now, where they weren't for a lot of purposes five years ago. A photographer who is lucky enough to shoot their own personal good enough camera can concentrate on learning their tool really well, on developing the relationship with their tool that Ansel had with his 8x10, or Henri Cartier-Bresson had with his Leica - knowing how their camera will "draw" (to use Sean Reid's term) each image. A few years ago, the question was was "how will each new generation of camera impact what I do" - now, for photographers whose work is well-matched to their camera, the question has become "how can I make this image with the tool I have chosen". An exciting day for photographers (although a sad one for camera company accountants). Hint to camera companies - photographers always want lenses, even when cameras are evolving more slowly!
We've reached a point where cameras HAVE become "good enough" for most purposes - the only difference I have with Michael is that I'd include the D3x as a part of that trend, rather than singling it out as an outlier away from the trend. The D3x offers the very best image quality available from small-format in a rugged body, without spending three times as much on medium format. Witness Phase's recent "who's afraid of the D3x" (my title, not theirs) promotion in which they give away FIVE lenses with purchase of a P45+. The D3x will make very, very good 24x36 inch prints - I'm still learning how, but my initial attempts are nothing to sneeze at, even as I learn the optimum sharpening and other adjustments for my combination of camera and printer (iPF6100). The dynamic range is just amazing (11 stops or so with texture, 9 with real detail - one stop on each end added to what the Zone System was designed for (Zone 0 is a textured black, not maximum black, and Zone X isn't paper white, but a textured white - real detail extends from Zone I to IX on the D3x) and the resolution is stunningly sharp. I will not claim that it can equal a P65+, because it can't, but comparisons against lower-end medium format digital are VERY close. It has added new print sizes to what I can do, up to 24x36. I don't know the Alpha well at all, but big prints I've seen from it are not D3x level (they're very good, but the D3x is substantially better).
When we can print 24x36 from carefully selected and used small format, where does that leave the state of photography today? We have access to an amazing range of cameras for every budget and need, and many of them are VERY reasonably priced. For hobbyist use and 8x10 printing, there are at least six manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus and Pentax) making great SLRs, any of which will deliver a superb 8x10 print. In this category, the camera I'm really looking forward to seeing is the little Micro 4/3 interchangeable lens "rangefinder" that Olympus has been showing under glass. The thing is the size of a G10 if not smaller, yet has an (arguably) SLR-size sensor in it and interchangeable Zuiko lenses. Oskar Barnack would have loved it, with its strong dose of Leica spirit. Some of the SLRs are under $400, and few if any in this category exceed $700.
In the advanced hobbyist/13x19 print category, there are 12 mp range DSLRs galore, many of them under $1000. You can get fully professional autofocus at the top of this category (from Nikon in the D300), a rotating screen on a few Sonys, compatibility with any lens line you choose, and even a full-frame camera (a clearance 5D mkI). All of them are under $1500, with only the D300 or a 5D pushing that figure (and both manufacturers have cheaper options).
In the category of cameras that match 17 inch printers well, there are still three manufacturers left, with a wide range of camera types and prices. There has not yet been a crop-frame SLR that has convinced me of its credentials at this level (will there ever be? - there are limits imposed by pixel size), but Canon, Nikon and Sony all make full-frame cameras that do. There's also a Canon reasonably priced on the used market (the 1Ds mkII) that certainly falls in this category. Perhaps the Alpha 900 or one of the newer Canons belongs even above this, intermediate between printer sizes (as Michael says, able to print 20x24). Cameras at this level are available below $2500, and there is a good choice of features - from 12 MP with a usable ISO 6400 to 21 MP with video, or 25 MP with Zeiss lenses. If you're willing to buy a used camera and accept a heavy battery pack, there's even a fully professional, weathersealed vertical-grip body in this price range.
Nobody has yet shown me a convincing 24x36 print from any "35mm" DSLR except the D3x - that doesn't mean nobody's printing them from the Alpha or a newer Canon - just that the prints I've seen from both didn't convince me of their ability to print that size (noisy shadows in particular - the Alpha files were from Sony, presumably converted from raw with their own converter, while I understand that many Alpha users prefer the results from other converters). I'm making 24x36 prints of detailed landscapes from the D3x, and other owners are as well. I'm sure that Canon (and maybe Sony) will release their own 24x36 capable SLR before long, although at least Canon's will probably be the same price. The 24x36 print size is a former piece of medium format territory that has now been invaded by at least one DSLR, and more shall soon follow.
I agree that the Alpha 900 is an amazing value in comparison with the D3x, but the D3x is itself a superb value against medium format. The image quality it offers is sufficient to print at any "normal" size, and it can replace medium format for many (most?) uses. The $8000 D3x is doing the job of a $18,000 low-end MF system. The $40,000 MF systems still stand alone and apart (and protected by the laws of physics) for the few applications that need them.
A bottleneck that we have already hit is "how large is your printer", and the closely related concept of "how large is the wall where you'll be displaying your prints". The bar for "35mm" image quality has cleared 24x36 inches, and, even if it never goes any higher (we see cheaper 24x36 capable cameras, NOT 30x45 capable cameras), 44 inch printers are very rare machines due to their great size (think upright piano), price and the amount of wall space their prints require. My iPF6100 is already a large and ugly piece of furniture that I have given up a corner of my workroom to because its prints are so beautiful, and I don't really want to meet the larger, heavier, uglier and more obtrusive iPF8100. Different photographers' tolerance of the demands of printers will vary, and some few will accept sharing their home or office with an iPF8100 (which I considered) or an Epson 9900. Others will decide that any printer larger than an Epson 3800 has a low spouse/partner acceptance factor.
Whatever your print size and needs, there is a camera out there that will meet them (and unless your print size is above 24x36 inches, it doesn't have to be MF). Unlike a few years ago, there aren't a lot of compromises in any digital SLR today that impact the images you make with it. They'll get better than they are today (more slowly than they have in the past, because the laws of physics are lurking in a dark alley nearby, waiting to whack unsuspecting camera makers on the head), but the improvements will be less and less relevant to the images we make with these tools.
When I remember back to my first digital SLR and printer setup (the Canon EOS-D30 (not the 30D - the original 3 MP D30 with the funky color space) and Epson's original Stylus Photo 2000 (the first pigment ink printer), and look at the 24x36 inch print I made yesterday, I realize how far we've come in the past eight years. It is now possible to make a print from a camera that looks like a 35mm SLR that would have required a view camera not that many years ago!
Where I'm more worried (and as a photography instructor at a university, I see a LOT of different cameras!) is with compacts. Digital compacts are rapidly LOSING features that would help photographers use them to make great images. Most compacts no longer feature independent aperture and shutter speed controls (a few years ago, most decent ones DID, even if they were inconvenient to reach), and I've seen a few this year that don't even have exposure compensation (and not $50 Kodaks, either). As the SLRs get better, and are good enough for more and more applications, the compacts seem to get WORSE! This is terrible news for photography teachers - our own cameras are wonderful, but what the students show up with is harder and harder to teach with (at least the cheaper SLRs mean that I see more and more of them, and can recommend them with a clearer conscience)!
-Dan
-Dan
-
Well spoken Dan!! I fully agree with your comments.
-
The first line: "We are coming to a significant crossroad in the evolution of digital photography. There is a convergence of factors underway that is changing the way in which we perceive the merits and value of the equipment that we purchase."
I think one important factor can be added: the huge difference in the way we communicate: internet.
At this moment on a lot of sites there are discussions about the quality of the Canon 5D mkII (which I own for a month now), regarding the IQ as well as the technical quality. This was unthinkable even 10 years ago. I bet without the internet maybe 90% of the users would never have noticed the 'black dots' (I wouldn't have). The immediate world-wide comparing of a lot of specs between models and brands has different consequences: some people won't buy the mkII now, Canon comes with new firmware within a month, people spend more time testing and comparing then they are making pictures. On the one hand this is good: producers are forced to uphold the quality, on the other hand people get unsatisfied with gear Cartier-Bresson could only dream of. When my 5DmkII doesn't die, I am very happy with it, even if I don't make pictures like Cartier-Bresson yet ;-).
-
Please, please can we stop using the DxO ratings to compare between different camera systems? Madness lies in those charts, madness, I tell you!
Phew! And I thought I was the only person who is seeing this.
The whole point of the new DxOMark website obviously is to attract clueless gearheads, to give them something to rant about, and to create traffic on the DxO web pages. But lo and behold---everybody is loving these pages; they get drawn into them like moths into the light. Just why can't people see how pointless those DxO rankings actually are?
... the DxO rankings do not tell us which sensors/cameras can produce the best images. What they tell us is only which cameras produce the best DxO scores.
Exactly!
And I am afraid that if people don't stop taking these brain-damaged DxOMark Sensor rankings for gospel then sooner or later we're going to end up with camera manufacturers designing their digital cameras not for best image quality but for best DxO rankings.
-- Olaf
-
Phew! And I thought I was the only person who is seeing this.
The whole point of the new DxOMark website obviously is to attract clueless gearheads, to give them something to rant about, and to create traffic on the DxO web pages. But lo and behold---everybody is loving these pages; they get drawn into them like moths into the light. Just why can't people see how pointless those DxO rankings actually are?
Exactly!
And I am afraid that if people don't stop taking these brain-damaged DxOMark Sensor rankings for gospel then sooner or later we're going to end up with camera manufacturers designing their digital cameras not for best image quality but for best DxO rankings.
-- Olaf
That's why these reviews from MR are so informative. He actually goes out and USES these cameras side by side, rather than using one camera, downloading RAWs from another, and then using online tests to form an amalgamation of theories about them. That's also why I've become so interested in Iliah Borg's opinion, as he owns and uses many of these cameras daily.
-
I also agree with jjj on this point. The Leica M8 is like a designer shirt. You are paying a premium for the name. There are better and more affordable tools available, better on balance, although the Leica might have one or two features of 'niche' value, such as a lack of an AA filter.
So you are saying that a Canon 5dMk11 or a Nikon D700 ISN'T a 'designer shirt' if people buy it to show off with? Lets face it, hardly any of the mid to high end DSLR cameras sold ever do a full job of work, unless it is to display the status of the owner. So this nonsense about Leica being for toffs is part true and part untrue, but your broad brush should also include the weekend warrior who wants to impress his mates, or people on camera forums with the latest DSLR.
As Michael points out, there is little to upgrade for in most camera releases if truth be told. But do you hear of people deciding to leapfrog camera releases so their next model is a reasonable improvement from the one they have, not just a vague shuffle forward. No, of course you don't. What you do hear is 'I'll grab one of those because I need this, or that feature', which makes you wonder what they did before 'this or that feature' was invented. No, get real, Canon, Nikon, or any other manufacturer sells more DSLR cameras to 'style' concious photographers than for any other reason. The value for most purchasers is in having the latest kit, no matter the common sense or expense, pure and simple.
Steve
-
... hardly any of the mid to high end DSLR cameras sold ever do a full job of work, unless it is to display the status of the owner. [...] Canon, Nikon, or any other manufacturer sell more DSLR cameras to 'style' conscious photographers than for any other reason. The value for most purchasers is in having the latest kit, no matter the common sense or expense, pure and simple.
That's absolutely true (by the way, it used to be true 30 years ago just as well). And that's good! Because it keeps sales up and prices down. But it's bad, too. Because particularly those who buy multi-thousand-dollar cameras for a status symbol rather than for doing their jobs are more interested in DxO rankings than in image quality.
-- Olaf
-
That's absolutely true (by the way, it used to be true 30 years ago just as well). And that's good! Because it keeps sales up and prices down. But it's bad, too. Because particularly those who buy multi-thousand-dollar cameras for a status symbol rather than for doing their jobs are more interested in DxO rankings than in image quality.
-- Olaf
Why does it need to be like that?
I am sure that there is a strong element of truth in what you say but I also think that there are a significant number of photographers, who can afford to buy and enjoy the latest equipment as objects in their own right rather than simply a means to an end, can and do produce wonderful imagery. Why should the two aspects of photography - an ability to take great photographs and an interest in the latest equipment technology be mutually exclusive?
-
Dan's essay is very illuminating. He notes that a principle gating factor controlling how much money you need to spend on a camera nowadays is how much wall space you have.
My D300 and Epson 4800 already produce satisfying prints larger than I have space for. The principal reason I can see for upgrading the D300 body is for a couple more stops of exposure latitude. Other than that, I'm good. I'll spend the money I save on fuel for photographic adventures.
As I've said here before, this truly is the Golden Age of Photography.
-
I think it's amusing how Michael goes on and on about "value" of the A900 based on the purchase price and pixel count of the sensor. Then he goes on to say he ordered a 60MP digital camera - for what costs 15 times the price of the camera whose value he admires so much.
He assumes the lenses that Nikon and Canon have, and Sony does not, have zero value. Any half-competent landscape and macro photographer will see the extremely high value in the PC-E/TS-E lenses, which makes a far greater difference to image quality in many contexts than 24 vs. 12 MP. Any wildlife/sports photographer would see the value in high-performance supertelephoto lenses - which Sony does not have. For available light portraiture I prefer to work with lenses that are easy to manual focus. I could go on and on - there are just so many things that a serious photographer would need that just aren't there in the Sony system.
To me, an A900 just has no value at all. Sony had to price it the way they did - because they have almost no AdAm/pro user base left and because they lack so many lenses that their body would have to be perceived as great value to have any buyers. And frankly - if I had to take it for free, I would have to pass. For if I wanted a camera with such a limited set of lenses available - I'd pick a Zeiss Ikon or something which is at least nice and has some unique characteristics.
His G10 vs. MF comparison was just too incredible, any half-competent photographer would see the difference in the richness and depth of tonality and color even on the web sized images. I don't know where he found his "Panel", perhaps they were all retirement ready from the point of view of their vision.
I can't put this any nicer, I am sorry if I sound rude. But I can't feel anything but disgust for the author's lack of seeing the larger context in which the value of camera bodies and systems are evaluated. Not everyone just uses a 24-70/2.8 for everything.
-
I am not sure why Michael leaves the 5d MKII out of his value equation. It does score higher on the DxO ranking (albeit by .1 of a point) than the A900, costs about the same, very similar resolution, and does better on high iso photos. Add to that the fact it shoots video (which in the past he has stated will become important) and you have a camera which certainly competes with the A900 in value.
-
All will be revealed in good time.
Michael
-
So you are saying that a Canon 5dMk11 or a Nikon D700 ISN'T a 'designer shirt' if people buy it to show off with?
Yes. That's basically what I'm saying. People can use anything as a status symbol according to their circumstances. In certain very poor parts of Africa, ownership of a plastic bucket is seen as a status symbol. I used to find it amusing that in India, many years ago, fountain pens were often bought primarily as status symbols rather than for use. It was fashionable to always have one sticking out of one's shirt pocket to indicate to everyone that one was literate and educated.
And of course, one can imagine that those who were really hard up and desperate, would simply buy a fountain pen top and clip it to their shirt pocket. There must have been quite a market in those days for just fountain pen tops. (Apologies if any Indians reading this feel offended. I'm talking about a situation many decades ago.)
-
To me, an A900 just has no value at all. Sony had to price it the way they did - because they have almost no AdAm/pro user base left and because they lack so many lenses that their body would have to be perceived as great value to have any buyers. And frankly - if I had to take it for free, I would have to pass. For if I wanted a camera with such a limited set of lenses available - I'd pick a Zeiss Ikon or something which is at least nice and has some unique characteristics.
http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php (http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php)
These will work with the A900. It's not a completely worthless list, after all. I see super telephoto and macro lenses on that page, and that's only the actual Minolta/Sony ones. Sigma and many other makers made lenses as well.
-
I'm starting to think harder about the "system" aspects myself. As we've covered here many times, the old rules about aperture are no longer sufficient, if you want to extract maximum resolution from a particular digital system. For example, the latest Photo Techniques magazine has a good article about the relationship between diffraction and pixel pitch.
If we're already to the point where we should be basing our whole system around expected print size (I know I am), then our equipment considerations need to take that into account. Maybe buying the best glass is wasted money, if you're using a crop frame camera. Maybe Canon and Nikon don't make lenses that reach the available resolution from their own full frame sensors. Worth thinking about.
I've contended for about 5 years now that the manufacturers might consider redesigning lenses to concentrate exclusively on resolution at the expense of all other optical qualities (like fall off), then fix those errors in post with s/w, the way DxO and DPP do now. You might create a whole new system with simpler, cheaper, lighter glass that actually produces better ultimate IQ. Surely the reason the G10 performed so well in Michael's tests is that the lens was designed specifically for that sensor. But we're still expecting our SLR lenses to work well on film bodies, crop bodies, ad FF. Maybe that's the wrong way to go now.
And while we're at it, why not make our sensors match the proportions of the paper? It would be interesting to hear from those of you who make very large prints how you decide on a final image proportion. Do you crop to artistic subject dimensions, or to a size that's cheap to frame? Just curious.
-
To me, an A900 just has no value at all. Sony had to price it the way they did - because they have almost no AdAm/pro user base left and because they lack so many lenses that their body would have to be perceived as great value to have any buyers. And frankly - if I had to take it for free, I would have to pass. For if I wanted a camera with such a limited set of lenses available - I'd pick a Zeiss Ikon or something which is at least nice and has some unique characteristics.
While I wholeheartedly agree that T/S lenses are the biggest hole in the Sony line-up*, they are working on the telephoto end, and, frankly, I don't see much of a glaring hole outside of those two extremes, especially when they announce that Zeiss wide-angle prime they've been showing. For studio and available light portraiture, there really is no better lens line-up than the ZA 24-70, 85 and 135, and that's why I chose it. In fact, it's interesting you say that you wouldn't take the A900 for free. If you told me the 1Ds III, 5Dii, A900, D700, and D3x were all the same price, and put them on a table and told me to choose one to keep, I'd pick the A900 first. My point being, it really depends on the photographers needs.
*there are Schneider and Zeiss/Hartblei t/s lenses for Alpha, but they kind of go against the "value" issues. ie, EXPENSIVE!
-
The value vs. quality discussion almost seems like the old film vs. digital arguments, because almost *any* statement you make about it -- including Michael's essay -- is going to be largely wrong, when viewed from an individual perspective (and cameras are used one at a time, not as a mass).
Some comments:
1. Comparisons like the G10 vs. the P45+ are entertaining, but essentially meaningless, because for the comparison not to be completely ridiculous, everything has to be tilted in the smaller camera's favor. I don't know about the P45, having never even seen one, but I know that with big prints, or in poor light, or in DR, or in the ability to capture very wide or very long shots, a D3 or D3x would kick the G10's ass. In other words, the test was rigged in the G10's favor, and to make a valid point -- that small camera quality can be very good for most purposes, and that *most* of the population really needs nothing a lot better. But, LL really isn't aimed at the general population, is it? Does *Ray* seem like a part of the general population?
2. Is the A900 better value for money? That would depend largely on individual circumstances, and those are so varied that it's almost impossible to answer the question. Would the hypothetical buyer have to buy a whole new Sony system to replace a lot of paid-for Nikon equipment? Are there any problems with, say, going on an antarctic expedition where there are 50 Canons and 25 Nikons and only 1 Sony, which leaves you with no possibility of borrowing gear if something goes wrong? Would the A900 be better value if Sony decides, "Eh, maybe we're not right for the high-end camera business," and the A900 gets orphaned so that eventually *all* your equipment becomes worthless, including the lenses, flashes, adapters, etc? What's better value for a guy who wants exquisite value and for whom the price difference is trivial? You can generalize to the population (for people just starting out, with no experience, with no long learning curve to abandon and another one to begin, yes, I think the A900 might represent a better value proposition, but for somebody just starting out, I wouldn't recommend a top-end camera of any kind. Why not learn on a good $900 outfit to see if you like it?)
3. IMHO, photography has always been somewhat of a crippled art. Most art traditional visual forms (painting, sculpture, ceramics) are "human sized," but the size of photographs has always been largely dictated by the technology. Ansel Adams once said something about taking the largest camera he could carry -- because he wanted large "human-sized" prints. I've seen a very large Adams print that was made for display outside an exhibition, and it didn't look so good, though he was a masterful printer, because it was simply too large for the negative. Looked fine at 20 feet, but from the usual Adams photograph viewing of four to six feet, it looked bad. Now, with the new technology, we are finally seeing large, human-sized prints that will blow you away at any distance, and that can be made with relatively transportable cameras. But we're at the bottom end of the range of human-sized prints with 35mm cameras. For people whose work demands larger prints, the D3x may give them more of what they need over the A900. And the next Canon may give them even more and perhaps the next Sony will leapfrog the Canon. For people working along this edge, the quality/value scale may have little meaning. This is particularly true for people like Bernard, who are long-distance trekkers and where MF may not be a viable option simply because of weight.
4. For me, the D3 (NOT a D3x) is a better value than an A900 because I don't sweat the resolution that much, but I *really* like the low-light abilities. So -- for me a $4,000 camera is a better value than a $3000 camera that has twice the resolution, because I *really* want to take shots at ISO 6400, and if they have some shadow artifacts, and the color's not quite right, I'll live with it. If I could get ISO 12800 or ISO 25000 with a 24mp camera, I'd be in hog heaven. I'll take as much resolution as I can get, but I gotta have the high ISO.
5. Camera size can be critical for a lot of people. As soon as the Olympus m4/3 comes out, I'm going to buy one and slap my Leica M lenses on it. I like lenses that are a little long, and the idea of a small, compact camera with an f1 100mm-equivalent lens really turns my crank. It'd be expensive, but no A900 would do what you could do with that combo...and if you *need* that combo, then an A900 would be bad value, period.
JC
-
I think it's amusing how Michael goes on and on about "value" of the A900 based on the purchase price and pixel count of the sensor. Then he goes on to say he ordered a 60MP digital camera - for what costs 15 times the price of the camera whose value he admires so much.
He assumes the lenses that Nikon and Canon have, and Sony does not, have zero value. Any half-competent landscape and macro photographer will see the extremely high value in the PC-E/TS-E lenses, which makes a far greater difference to image quality in many contexts than 24 vs. 12 MP. Any wildlife/sports photographer would see the value in high-performance supertelephoto lenses - which Sony does not have. For available light portraiture I prefer to work with lenses that are easy to manual focus. I could go on and on - there are just so many things that a serious photographer would need that just aren't there in the Sony system.
To me, an A900 just has no value at all. Sony had to price it the way they did - because they have almost no AdAm/pro user base left and because they lack so many lenses that their body would have to be perceived as great value to have any buyers. And frankly - if I had to take it for free, I would have to pass. For if I wanted a camera with such a limited set of lenses available - I'd pick a Zeiss Ikon or something which is at least nice and has some unique characteristics.
His G10 vs. MF comparison was just too incredible, any half-competent photographer would see the difference in the richness and depth of tonality and color even on the web sized images. I don't know where he found his "Panel", perhaps they were all retirement ready from the point of view of their vision.
I can't put this any nicer, I am sorry if I sound rude. But I can't feel anything but disgust for the author's lack of seeing the larger context in which the value of camera bodies and systems are evaluated. Not everyone just uses a 24-70/2.8 for everything.
Seriously? All that hot air and disdain over Sony not having any TS lenses and a 400mm f/2.8? Yeah, they should have T/S lenses, but let's face it, that is a seriously niche market and the lenses will cost a tremendous amount of money.
As far as available light portraiture, I guess you haven't heard of the CZ 135 f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.4s? As far as macro I guess you haven't heard of the 50mm and 100mm f/2.8s (and 200mm f/4 KM)? As far as specialty glass, I guess you aren't aware of the millions of Maxxum lenses floating around the world?
And what's this about "losing" the pro user base? I wasn't aware they had lost so many people in the 5 months they've had a "pro" (although it isn't) camera out.
-
All will be revealed in good time.
Michael
Great first article Michael. Looking forward to articles from the rest from the trip.
I guess (as a Sony user) we are always hearing about the lack of lenses for the Sony system, some of which are justified but I find most are not.
I guess what would really be of interest..... Out of the gear taken by your clients, what percentage of these used lenses that would not be available in Sony mount? The clients sound like they had 'big pockets' so many not the best metric as a good represenitive of 'Joe Average A900 Owner' - but would give us some idea.
-
Sometimes is just isn't worth the effort of replying to ill-thought-out partisan comments by people that would seemingly prefer to pick a fight that engage in rational discourse.
Michael
-
i think the best thing is that there has never been a time in digital capture when so much quality was available for so little money....it really does not matter which system or camera one goes for, they can all provide amazing results and with the D3, 5DII, A900 and many others the prices have really come down....
just imagine what all the great "old" photographers admired here could have done with all this gear....
the point is not if this is the better value or quality, that is up to each and everyone....i believe michael likes the A900 because he has all the other toys anyway and is jsut happy to see a tool for that price that can provide certain qualities he likes.....and i am sure he has the same feelings about the P65....good for him....
and since this is all very personal i will share a little something here....i reluctantly got a G10 and it is great...don't get me wrong...it really is....but it totaly sucks....i just don't like the shots i take with it...i don't like anything above 400 (if even), i hate flash on p&s, so really it does not work for snapshots for me...unless they are outside....the m8 on the other hand just can't take a bad picture....and its high iso isn't so great either....but it really feels like a camera...the G10 feels like a cellphone cam...and i actually prefer my iphone shots (with all the fun apps (quadcam, camerabag,....)....so in the end there are so many variables, a lot of the time you just can't objectively make a decision...or at least not one that makes sense to other people....
i am actually really excited about the panasonic G1...not yet...because zooms just don't do it for me at all....but that pancake 20/1.7 will be just perfect...great lowlight right there...add in a larger (much larger then G10 and such) sensor and all the easy, "i won't miss a shot" features the m8 just does not have (AF!?) and it comes pretty close to a dream p&s....although i did see that olympus micro 3/4 mock up...silver with leather...retro...hmmm....
if it isn't obvious...yes i am totally into cameras...and i don't know any photographer who isn't....without getting too philosophical....but the camera is an extension of the body and the eye....so it has to feel right...whatever that is for everybody....
i'll head over to DxO now to check the "feel right" ratings...otherwise i just won't know what does.....
-
Phew! And I thought I was the only person who is seeing this.
The whole point of the new DxOMark website obviously is to attract clueless gearheads, to give them something to rant about, and to create traffic on the DxO web pages. But lo and behold---everybody is loving these pages; they get drawn into them like moths into the light. Just why can't people see how pointless those DxO rankings actually are?
Exactly!
And I am afraid that if people don't stop taking these brain-damaged DxOMark Sensor rankings for gospel then sooner or later we're going to end up with camera manufacturers designing their digital cameras not for best image quality but for best DxO rankings.
-- Olaf
The problem with such a view you have just expressed is is the lack of evidence to support it. It therefore seems more like a rant, as though you are not happy with some of the DXOMark results because they don't show your favourite camera in a good light.
Now, it's certainly true that what might appear to be large differences on the DXO charts might sometimes susrprisingly not be noticeable on prints of a certain size and in images of a certain type of subject. An obvious example would be Michael's comparison of the Canon G10 and Phase P45+. I raised the question myself in the other thread on this topic, why differences in noise and tonal range were not apparent to experienced photographers when viewing A3+ prints of the same subject, from both these cameras. Such differences in tonal range between the G10 and the A900 (for example) seem quite significant on the DXO charts at the 8"x12" size.
However, such practical examples (as the G10/P45+ comparison) do not necessarily demonstrate the DXO tests are wrong or irrelevant. All scientific results have to be interpreted and their significance evaluated.
We already know that A3+ size is not large enough to show off the resolution differences between the G10 and the P45+. Nothing difficult to understand there. We also know that one can't demonstrate differences in Dynamic Range in a subject that doesn't contain a wide range of brightness levels, at least not with a single, correctly exposed shot. We also know that noise is more readily apparent on smooth surfaces than heavily textured surfaces.
It would now appear to be the case, that one can't necessarily demostrate differences in tonal range if the subject being photographed does not lend itself to such fine distinctions. In the case of the G10/P45+ comparison, the subject was a fairly evenly lit forest of detailed textures (leaves, bark and twigs) which would tend to obscure differences of smoothness of tone.
In order to demonstrate such differences in tonality, it would appear to be necessary to choose a different subject, perhaps a young female model with smooth, blemish-free complexion.
To summarize, I think one should consider the following points when using DXO results as a guide.
(1) Are the results accurate in a comparative sense? If camera A is shown as having a greater DR at ISO 200 than camera B, is there any contrary evidence, for example, that in fact Camera B has a greater DR than camera A at ISO 200 and that DXO has got it wrong?
(2) The fact that performance difference as shown on DXO graphs may not always be apparent on prints of a particular size, may be an indication that the photographed subject is not well-chosen to demonstrate such differences. To demonstrate noise, you need smooth, dark surfaces. To demonstrate DR you need subjects with a high brightness range. To demonstrate resolution differences, you need huge prints, or 100% crops representative of huge prints.
(3) Divergences of lines on a chart might appear to be significant but their significance needs to be translated to real-world shooting. For example, I personally would not be concerned about a difference of just 1/3rd of a stop of DR and/or SNR. 2/3rds of a stop just might get me interested, and a whole stop definitely gets me interested, particularly if it's at ISO 1600, and that's because I frequently find myself in a situation where I need to use ISO 1600 in order to get a sufficiently fast shutter speed for a sharp image.
-
I can't put this any nicer, I am sorry if I sound rude. But I can't feel anything but disgust for the author's lack of seeing the larger context in which the value of camera bodies and systems are evaluated. Not everyone just uses a 24-70/2.8 for everything.
yes you are rude and you should be labelled as a troll and sent back to dpreview forum as I was, for being rude.
I can see your point on Sony not having any value for you, since they do not have the lenses you need. that is a fact and it is fair enough.
On the other hand if someone uses only primes from 50mm to 135mm, and maybe also 200mm, Sony/Zeiss/Minolta offer something that neither Nikon or Canon can do better. they may be equal (not quite), but definitively not better. Lets put also the 70/200mm on that list....
-
We already know that A3+ size is not large enough to show off the resolution differences between the G10 and the P45+. Nothing difficult to understand there.
I made an experiment few weeks ago.
I took a shot of the usual test junk (bottles of good wine, cans of beer, cosmetic packagings, foulards from the wife's closet etc..) that are "normally" used for testing cameras and lenses.
I used a Sony a900 with a 135mm CZ and on the other a Phase P30 on a Mamiya 645 with a 150mm AF from previous generation, which is slightly inferior to the latest one, but still very good. Both shot at f8 under studio strobes.
Processed with the best possible RAW converter that could extract the most of acuity for each file and sharpened to taste until they looked at their best. Though they were sharpened very, very little.
i printed on an Canon pro9500 on glossy tabloid size paper and showed to one photographer that has never used anything more than a FF dslr and to two Art Directors from down town New York, who normally work with photographers that use DB on hasselblad and mamiya only and are published on Vogue and friends regularly.
The photographer that was not familiar with anything different from a DSLR, could not really tell the difference, well maybe... Instead the two AD, picked the print from the Phase One back on a matter of few seconds without even looking too close. they both actually hold the prints on their hands and extended their harm to view it better. They simply said something on the line of "this print has more crispiness and some how more life and better nuances than the other one.
That is pretty much what I also saw when the prints popped out from my printer as well. They were very close, colors were pretty similar, yet there was something on one print that the other did not have.
When I look at my photos or someone else does, just for a technical quality assessment, that is the kind of reaction, or "metric" for observation, I like to ear.
Bottom line: some people do see the difference and IMO that is also the people worth to work with.
-
This is timely for me - I've been struggling with the Value/Quality issue for several months as I debate the four systems I'm considering. Part of my issue is the self imposed constraint of being able to carry the system on a motorcycle. This makes film and 4x5 hard but not impossible. Another constraint is that I've decided I need to give up film - the time in darkroom, scanning, cleaning the scanned images all add up to more hassle that I want to deal with any longer. I really don't want to deal with film holder while camping from the bike. For reasons of sanity - I'll be using a 4 wheeled vehicle in the winter when I'm likely to encounter ice/snow. The jeep has no problem hauling a DSLR system and a 4x5 system, (and a few other odds and ends)
Two of the systems are the Phase One/ P30+ and Phase One/P45+ Obvious benefits in image quality - but $$$$ OUCH. I've all but given up on this idea unless I go back to software development full time (which leaves too little time for photography). Even though it would let me shoot with a Mamyia (or my Contax 645AFD) and with my Ebony. It lacks any sort of useful high ISO or image stabilization for hand held work unless your using flash, which I rarely if ever do at this point. This type of camera is fine on a tripid for me, but I'm not fond of using them handheld. It's not weather resistant, and it sucks batteries. It's a bit awkward on a 4x5 what with the sliding back and extra cable. But GREAT images. I suspect what I really want, but won't be able to afford is the Leica S2. It would be make do on lenses for a little while as they add to the currently spec'd 4 lenses. But since the lenses are being designed for the sensor (or at least a particular size of sensor and I suspect a future target photo site size of around 5microns, the image quality should be really stunning. (Ok what I really want is the RED 6x17 fitted to an Ebony 617 camera and an A900 to do hand held shots - but that's just not going to happen with out winning the lottery)
Given that I've decided my next printer is going to be a 7900 - 24mp is ok - 30 would be better 40 is maybe overkill (but probably not )
So I either get the Nikon - sell 3 of my existing lenses and one body and pick up 3-5 new lenses (24-70 f/2.8, 135 f/2.8 DC, 180 f/2.8,(or the 80-200), 300 f/4, and maybe the 85 f/2.8 T/S PC) and keep my 50, 85 and 105 macro. And maybe add teh 14-24 (which is supposed to be a truly great lens).
Or I get the Alpha and sell all the Nikon gear. If I get the Alpha I'll get the Zeiss 24-70, 85, and 135 and the Sony 70-300G, and the 100 Macro. - maybe add the 16-35 (which for me is a better range than the Nikon 14-24)
and - I'm no closer to a decision than I was an hour ago
-
Hi Vince -
If it helps at all, I consider my D3x to be more than merely "OK" at 24x36 inches - the D3x and iPF6100 are producing some stunners together at that size - not only resolution, but dynamic range and lovely tonality as well. The Alpha may do this too - I'm no Alpha expert (there are some on here, and they can speak to their tool as I can speak only to mine). The Alpha samples I have seen at 24x36 inches were no better than OK, but all that I know of their provenance is that they were at ISO 200 and converted from RAW. They were from Sony, so I assume that Sony's own RAW converter was used, which I know is NOT the choice of the Alpha cogniscenti on here (I think Aperture and Capture One are the preferred choices), and I know neither the printer nor the profile used (the paper seemed to be some RC gloss, but I don't know which one) - hardly fair against the D3x with Capture One converting the 14-bit NEFs, working carefully in Photoshop with the PixelGenius sharpening tools and printing to an iPF6100 working on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta, profiled with Bill Atkinson's 5202 patch target! All I can say is that the D3x with this workflow CAN and DOES produce stunning 24x36 inch prints, not that anything else cannot - ask an Alpha owner with a good Alpha workflow (I'm sure Michael has a superb one) what they think of their camera at 24x36.
If you don't want to go bigger than 24x36, you'll be happy with the D3x, so I wouldn't consider the Phase, especially given the bike.
-Dan
-
I made an experiment few weeks ago.
I took a shot of the usual test junk (bottles of good wine, cans of beer, cosmetic packagings, foulards from the wife's closet etc..) that are "normally" used for testing cameras and lenses.
I used a Sony a900 with a 135mm CZ and on the other a Phase P30 on a Mamiya 645 with a 150mm AF from previous generation, which is slightly inferior to the latest one, but still very good. Both shot at f8 under studio strobes.
Processed with the best possible RAW converter that could extract the most of acuity for each file and sharpened to taste until they looked at their best. Though they were sharpened very, very little.
I presume tabloid size is 11x17" or A3, pretty close to Michael's A3+ comparison. Again, I would refer you to the choice of subject. All cameras have differences in performance, to some degree. Whether or not such differences will be noticeable on the print will depend not only on the size of the print, but the nature of the subject material under comparison.
-
Re: Michael's first Quality vs Value article
Michael’s discussion of value and image quality is fascinating and clearly reasoned, as always. Allow me to add two thoughts: First, it is only true that price determines quality in the upper range of print sizes. Gallery-quality prints up to 12 x 18 are easily achieved using equipment costing less than $2,000, including camera, lens, printer, and Lightroom or Photoshop. Second, users’ goals should be a component of any consideration of image quality.
I observed the rise of personal computers as editor of Computer Shopper magazine, and after years of focusing on quality-performance-value, watched PC technology reach a plateau.
What happened in the PC industry after those fast-paced days has begun in digital imaging: As sensor technology reaches the plateau, performance among many cameras tends to level out.
If you filter out photo-industry spin, the reason the Canon G10 compares well to—let’s say the Canon 5D MkII—is that both employ the same generation of technology and use the identical image-processing engine, DIGIC 4. Yes, the sensor is different, so at higher ISOs, the tiny G10 sensor kicks up a racket. But in important ways, the internals are the same.
To equate quality and price today is to overstate the significance of medium-format backs. As Michael has said, a $3,000 Canon 5D MkII or Sony A900 can surpass yesterday’s medium-format film cameras. Pricing is related to market size. One reason the Phase One P45 back is so expensive is that its sensor-fabrication equipment costs dearly, though not as much as fabs for the G10 and 5D MkII. But unlike them, the potential audience for the P45 in the low thousands. Yield for medium-format sensors is also lower than for smaller ones. Such factors demand premium pricing.
Individual goals are hard to define consistently, yet what each shooter strives for should inform discussions of image quality. Yes, large format was the king of quality, but as Michael aptly said, only at the cost of convenience.
Yesterday, I was lurking along the Delaware River with my new 5D MkII. I shot basically the same perspective I’d captured years ago in a successful photo using my Mamiya 645AFD. The image quality of the two cameras is similar, with advantages to the 5D MkII. Yet, in an hour, I shot dozens more images with the 5D MkII than I could have with the 645AFD—at no cost for film or processing. Just as the 645AFD allowed studio and landscape photographers to capture a nice percentage of the quality of a 4x5, quickly and conveniently, so the 5D MkII improves handling over the 645AFD, without loss in quality.
And because of technology’s plateau, anyone with the price of a Canon XSi, or even an under-$500 used Canon 20D, can produce much of the quality of a 5D MkII, or even a medium-format digital back, in print sizes approaching 12 x 18 inches, at up to ISO 800.
That’s huge, letting the would-be Ansel Adams know that (with suitable dedication) he or she can produce exhibition-quality prints, for peanuts.
To me, the nagging difference between what testing tells us and what our eyes can see is about what we can achieve. Yes, the 5D MkII captures more detail and dynamic range than the 20D, but after post-processing in Lightroom or Photoshop, either can produce a 12 x 18 print worthy of a gallery. Viewed from three feet or so, there’s not much to separate the prints, certainly not enough to diminish their impact.
With today’s technology, Yes You Can!
John Blackford, February 2009
-
I don't see how anyone can argue with the essay. It's a really simple, practical premise and covers all bases. Here's a quick summary if I may:
- There is camera equipment available to cover all bases
Everything from a webcam to the Hubble Space Telescope exists if you have the budget.
- Some people may require specialist equipment
Some people want THE best 35mm camera. Some people want T/S lenses or 400mm 2.8s. Some people want p65s. These people may purchase this kit, but it's gonna cost.
- Other people have less specialist needs. Arguably, these people are the majority. They will be the principal recipiants of some great deals.
For the 'majority' who do not have really specialist needs, there are some cracking deals around. One of which appears to be an a900 coupled with some Zeiss.
Micheal's essay, and sorry about this... It doesn't really say anything we didn't already know. It's just common sense. What he does so well is to extract the killer point from the mess by drawing attention to something that is so easily overlooked - for a lot of people a lot of the time you don't need to spend very much money to produce great results - results that we'd have only been dreaming about a few years ago.
All the D3x Vs a900 that's going on in this thread... It's kind of missing the point of the article.
-
Let's be honest - as we progress through the years, there *always* will be something better - always. Unless you're wealthy enough to constantly upgrade, at some point you have to be willing to hop off the train and be comfortable with what you've got. I may only be using cruddy old 12mp D2X and D300's now, certainly not anything as exciting as the 24mp class bodies, but you know what? - I'm producing 16x20" prints - the largest size I commonly print - that are superior to anything I ever did with 35mm and easily in the same league of prints I produced from 6x6 negs/chromes from back in the old days. I'll certainly upgrade at some point, but at my own pace. I put the money into the best lenses first (and some of them Sony, for example, has absolutely no counterpart in their system, thus severely limiting them as a choice should I have wanted to switch brands anyway)
This is so true (and so overlooked) ... at some point a person has to just get something and enjoy what he has. Whether next year some other manufacturer comes out with a camera back that's a hair better here, or a hair better there, means nothing. It doesn't matter what back you buy, this will happen, so therefore what the intelligent person does is just make a purchase decision on what's available to him at the moment, that will best fit his needs, and try to get it for the best overall value. And then be happy.
In fact, before Michael's "Quality vs.Value" article came out at all, I myself posted this very idea on the "D3x Offers the Best Image Quality" thread on the Camera Back forum ... quality versus value. I asked the question, is the D3x really worth 3x the 5DMkII? Does it have the same value? To me, no, but to someone else maybe so.
But hell, for that matter, what about the 50D? Consider this:
If I were going on a safari to Africa, I would have to pay $8100 for a D3x and another ~$8,000 for a 500mm Nikkor f/4 lens. That's sixteen grand for a camera and one lens.
By contrast, if I decided to buy a Canon 50D (and I did), that puts me out $1,100 for the back, and I could purchase a Canon 600mm f/4 lens for only $7,600. That means I am only out $8,700 for both a camera back and a lens, and my 600 mm Canon lens is better than Nikkor's 500 mm, in pretty much every way. Moreover, because of the 1.6x crop factor, my 600 mm lens is really a 960 mm lens, so I have almost twice the reach at around half the cost! Nikkor doesn't even have an answer for this, and Sony sure as heck doesn't either.
So please don't tell me that some extra resolution or high ISO quality in the D3x is going to make up for nearly twice the reach at half the cost. What would be a dust-speck in the $16,000 of wasted money on the D3x and 500 mm Nikkor ... becomes a beautiful, printable photograph on my 50D and 600 mm Canon. And, again, you can't do that with a Sony either
So sure, maybe in dark light and within the D3x's reach, a person can take a better 40" blow-up photo than my 50D. Whoopie.
I can get twice the reach of the D3x at half the cost. And I can do a whole lot more with my 50D for that same total $16,000, and by a country mile, than I could getting a D3x and a single 500 mm lens. I could add a 5x macro, a 180 mm macro, and a 10-22 mm super-wide, and get a backpack to keep it all in --- and still save $5K.
But if someone gets their own personal satisfaction that, under the right conditions, he can crank out a bigger blow-up print than I can, fine. I am happy with that.
I personally get the satisfaction of knowing I can take absolutely wonderful photographs ... that 99.99% of the human population can't tell the difference between the two ... and that I can get all the lenses I could possibly want, for far less money.
That to me is value.
Jack
.
-
Moreover, because of the 1.6x crop factor, my 600 mm lens is really a 960 mm lens, so I have almost twice the reach at around half the cost! Nikkor doesn't even have an answer for this,
.
Why? Ever heard of Nikon APS cameras and Nikon 600mm telephoto lens?
-
One thing to bear in mind when comparing reach based on APS-C cropping:
50D (for example) is 15.1MP and 1.6 crop.
A900 is 24.6MP no crop. If you crop that at a ratio of 1.6, you get 15.375MP which means that with the same focal length lens you actually get more resolution out of the A900 than the 50D after you crop the A900 shot to the same view as the 50D. Sure, it's a tiny amount, but don't be confused by "reach" on an APS-C - it's not reach, it's just effective view. After that, it comes down to pixel density.
Although no longer available, the Minolta - AF 600 F4 APO (http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=23) or the Minolta - AF 600 F4 APO G HS (http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=24) would offer you slightly more "reach" and were last seen at B+H for about $8k.
Certainly a more expensive combo than your 50D, and you'd have to be able to find a second hand lens available - they are out there, but not simply. Of course, for a little less reach you could go with the 500mm mirror for a "cheap" and certainly a light solution.
I think you make some fair points, but you've got to tread carefully when claiming that an APS-C lens gives more reach compared to something else if you don't take into account the pixel density as well as the sensor form.
-
One thing to bear in mind when comparing reach based on APS-C cropping:
50D (for example) is 15.1MP and 1.6 crop.
A900 is 24.6MP no crop. If you crop that at a ratio of 1.6, you get 15.375MP which means that with the same focal length lens you actually get more resolution out of the A900 than the 50D after you crop the A900 shot to the same view as the 50D. Sure, it's a tiny amount, but don't be confused by "reach" on an APS-C - it's not reach, it's just effective view. After that, it comes down to pixel density.
I don't believe that this is correct. The surface of the A900 sensor is 1.6^2 = 2.56 times larger than that of the 50D, meaning that a 9.6 MP camera has the same pixel density as that of the A900.
The 50D does therefore clearly have a higher pixel density.
As a consequence, using the same 600 mm lens on the 50D and the A900, and cropping the central section of an A900 frame, you will get less pixels and therefore less detail.
It is therefore totally correct to say that today, the 50D offers the highest pixel density of any DSLR and is therefore specwise well suited for telephoto work.
Whether its 15MP sensor does resolve more than the lower MP resolution bodies from the competition is of course a different question all together.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Why? Ever heard of Nikon APS cameras and Nikon 600mm telephoto lens?
Yes I have:
Nikon D300 = $1,500
Nikkor 600mm = $9,700
TOTAL PRICE = $11,200
By Contrast:
Canon 50D = $1,100
Canon 600mm = $7,600
TOTAL PRICE = $8,700
This translates to a $2,500 savings by going with the Canon product. The value in doing so is further augmented by the fact the D300 is a 1.4x crop (making the 600 mm only = to an 840 mm), whereas the 50D is a 1.6x crop (making the 600 mm into a 960 mm), so once again, Canon offers BY FAR the better value giving me 120 mm more reach for $2,500 less expense.
This means, by going with the 50D as I did, I could add a top-shelf Gitzo tripod, a Wimberly head, a Tamrack backpack, and a 100 mm macro lens, and still not have spent as much money as I would have on the lone Nikon product, while enjoying better reach too with my lens.
Now that's what I call VALUE, so thanks for pointing this out
Jack
-
By Contrast:
Canon 50D = $1,100
Canon 600mm = $7,600
TOTAL PRICE = $8,700
The 600 IS can actually be had for around 7400 US$. This huge difference in the US is surprising knowing that in Japan, the 2 lenses are priced within 400 US$ of each other. It is actually almost twice cheaper to buy a 600 IS in the US than it is in Japan (670.000 Yen vs 1.150.000 Yen).
This translates to a $2,500 savings by going with the Canon product. The value in doing so is further augmented by the fact the D300 is a 1.4x crop (making the 600 mm only = to an 840 mm), whereas the 50D is a 1.6x crop (making the 600 mm into a 960 mm), so once again, Canon offers BY FAR the better value giving me 140 mm more reach for $2,500 less expense.
The D300 is in fact a 1.5 crop factor.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes I have:
Nikon D300 = $1,500
Nikkor 600mm = $9,700
TOTAL PRICE = $11,200
By Contrast:
Canon 50D = $1,100
Canon 600mm = $7,600
TOTAL PRICE = $8,700
This translates to a $2,500 savings by going with the Canon product. The value in doing so is further augmented by the fact the D300 is a 1.4x crop (making the 600 mm only = to an 840 mm), whereas the 50D is a 1.6x crop (making the 600 mm into a 960 mm), so once again, Canon offers BY FAR the better value giving me 140 mm more reach for $2,500 less expense.
This means, by going with the 50D as I did, I could add a top-shelf Gitzo tripod, a Wimberly head, a Tamrack backpack, and a 100 mm macro lens, and still not have spent as much money as I would have on the lone Nikon product, while enjoying better reach too with my lens.
Now that's what I call VALUE, so thanks for pointing this out
Jack
Where I live the typical differences in prices are MUCH lesser. Typical Eurozone prices (www.technikdirekt.de)
Canon 50D 1119
Canon 600 8481
Nikon 300D 1499
Nikon 600 8999
That amounts to about 800 Euro difference, nothing to write home about in the grand scheme of things and many would argue you're buying a better camera and a more modern lens.
Granted that will buy you somewhat less pixels on the target since the Canon is of somewhat higher resolution and the crop factor is 1.6 vs. 1.5 (not 1.4 mind you) but still nothing to write home about.
-
Where I live the typical differences in prices are MUCH lesser. Typical Eurozone prices (www.technikdirekt.de)
Canon 50D 1119
Canon 600 8481
Nikon 300D 1499
Nikon 600 8999
That amounts to about 800 Euro difference, nothing to write home about in the grand scheme of things and many would argue you're buying a better camera and a more modern lens.
Granted that will buy you somewhat less pixels on the target since the Canon is of somewhat higher resolution and the crop factor is 1.6 vs. 1.5 (not 1.4 mind you) but still nothing to write home about.
Actually, it's a $900 difference where you live. So even where you live this would still get me an absolutely top caliber Gitzo tripod that I could throw in on top of my camera and lens ... the combined total which also gives me 60mm more in reach.
Either way you slice it, the value is with Canon. Where I live, the value is even greater.
There is no question both offer great products, but there is likewise simply no question as to which product gives you more for your money.
Jack
-
Yes good point, Bernard - my math was bad! thank you :-)
I suppose the point still stands that oyu need to consider pixel density when comparing different size sensors, but your math needs to be better than mine :-)
-
Seriously? All that hot air and disdain over Sony not having any TS lenses and a 400mm f/2.8? Yeah, they should have T/S lenses, but let's face it, that is a seriously niche market and the lenses will cost a tremendous amount of money.
No, my hot air isn't aimed at Sony. I use a lot of their products and the only fault I find from a general consumer's point of view is that their service has an extremely
bad attitude "do what ever you can to make it the customer's fault and responsibility, not ours". I have run into this with a product I purchased last year and I had to
sell it at 70% loss and a great deal of disappointment. They could have solved my problem very easily, but they didn't care to. Nikon service has been the polar opposite, with numerous free repairs of even old equipment done for me, no questions asked.
Nonetheless, my hot air was aimed at Michael who thinks value can be trivialised into "features+image quality of a camera body vs. price" as if words like
"service" and "lens line" etc. are of no value at all. I guess they mean little to people who travel to Antarctica or who update to every new generation of medium format digital back. For those people who actually have to look at the price - the articles are worthless as they display a disregard of the really valuable factors.
Also, the casual attitude that he displays, taking into account factors and disregarding others on a whim, and the lack of a proper understanding of technology and science just gets to me.
As far as available light portraiture, I guess you haven't heard of the CZ 135 f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.4s?
Of course, these are great lenses. However, I normally do my available light portraits with 50/1.4 type lenses and need good manual
focusability, i.e. true manual focus lenses or AF-S so that the MF adjustment can be easily and secure done when necessitated by the shallow DOF. I currently use 50/1.4 ZF and 50/1.4 AF-S for this, as well as some shorter and longer lenses, most of them manual focus so I can easily position the focus where it needs to be without fiddling with recomposition.
As far as macro I guess you haven't heard of the 50mm and 100mm f/2.8s (and 200mm f/4 KM)? As far as specialty glass, I guess you aren't aware of the millions of Maxxum lenses floating around the world?
Unfortunately there are no stores in my area that stock 2nd hand Sony/Minolta SLR equipment.
I am sure the Minolta macro lenses are great. However, they do not have tilt and so to someone like me who likes to photograph ice formations they would be of limited use.
When you adjust the shooting angle, the composition and reflections from the ice change dramatically. Only by using tilt is it possible to retain sharpness in a sufficient
part of the subject in the majority of situations that I encounter. The 85mm PC-E Micro-Nikkor serves here amiably. It also works great for landscapes.
Nikon also has the advantage of Zeiss 50mm and 100mm f/2 macro lenses, I have the latter which is optically the best lens I have ever had the pleasure to use. Not available for Sony.
And what's this about "losing" the pro user base? I wasn't aware they had lost so many people in the 5 months they've had a "pro" (although it isn't) camera out.
My comment mainly meant them having lost their advanced amateur and pro users that were once using Minolta 35mm film equipment. They had several pro 35mm bodies on the market (the 9 series), the A900 isn't the first. They waited too long to introduce ultrasonic autofocusing and to produce a competitive digital SLR; everyone had already switched to other brands. The sensor anti-shake is a brilliant invention by Minolta but it's not enough to compensate for the bad attitude displayed by Sony service and the limited lens lineup.
-
The value vs. quality discussion almost seems like the old film vs. digital arguments, because almost *any* statement you make about it -- including Michael's essay -- is going to be largely wrong, when viewed from an individual perspective (and cameras are used one at a time, not as a mass).
Thank you! I agree 100% with your post. An individual photographer, if they want to do something special with their work, is going to have personal, highly individual needs, which dictate choice of equipment.
-
The medium format data is now up on the DxO website.
When I took a look my initial reaction was a small whoop of "David and Goliath" joy to see the small guy trouncing the big guy! Seriously though, it has to be good news for photography as a whole if cheaper equipment is getting closer and closer to the quality gold standard.
Looking a little closer however I'm more confused than ever! Take the three cameras I use most, a P45+, Canon 5D MkII, and a Canon G10. The total DxO scores are P45+ 77.2, 5D MkII 79.0, and G10 37.8.
Here's my question,
I hear Michael's point that DxO may not be comparing apples with apples because some cameras apply corrections at the RAW conversion stage and some do it on the chip. But here's the thing. DxO give three separate scores, Color Depth, Dynamic range, and Lowlight ISO. The respective scores are P45+ 24.2, 12.9, 622, 5D MkII 23.7, 11.9, 1815, and G10 19.5, 10.0, 157. Michael, does your point apply equally to all three individual scores? Because the lowlight ISO score seems to tie in pretty well with my practical experience, the G10 is awful, the P45+ is better but still seriously wanting, and the 5D MkII is simply in a different league.
-
I'd pick the A900 first. My point being, it really depends on the photographers needs.
I fully agree - these are individual decisions and many may find Sony offers features / characteristics that other systems do not have. But in any evaluation of value, an individual component of a system cannot be evaluated without the other parts that a photographer needs being brought into the discussion.
It's good to know that there are Zeiss/Hartblei tilt/shift lenses available. However, they don't focus very close and aren't designed for close-ups/macro, which is where
I need tilt the most; the Nikon 85mm and 45mm PC-E focus down to a magnification of 1:2, and the 24mm to 1:2,7 although the 24mm isn't optimized for close-ups in the
sense that the PC(-E) Micro-Nikkors are.
To me Canon isn't a possibility either, as their viewfinders don't work with my anatomy so that I could see the whole frame comfortably.
-
Well, without entering a debate which I see is argumentative and opinionated, rather than factual, I'll add the following.
I photograph a wide variety of subjects in a wide variety of locales every year. I have deliberately made the switch to a Sony A900 for 2009 (even though I also have full Canon and Nikon outfits) because I feel that the system offered is complete enough to meet my varying needs. For instances, I had the latest Nikon, Canon and Phase One systems with me recently in Antarctica I chose to use the Sonys for about 75% of my shooting, and if I didn't have test reports to write likely would have used them more.
The reason is simple – I like the way they handle. As a photographer for some 40+ years and experience using just about every camera made in the past half century I find the A900 about as close to an ideal balance of features and straightforwardness as I have yet seen in a digital camera. As for the lenses, they are of a very high caliber, and I don't hesitate to use them for ANY purpose as they are fully comparable to anything from Canon or Nikon. The few holes in the line are quickly being filled, or are available from third parties.
Why does the A900 represent value? Because it offers a very attractive combination of price, features and handling, as well of course as very fine image quality. Why does the P65+ also represent value (to me)? Because it produces the highest quality images I have ever seen from any photographic device. Why is this so hard to understand?
We all have different needs and interests. Why some people feel it necessary to be combatative over this is something that I never fail to find amazing.
Michael
-
The medium format data is now up on the DxO website...
Take the three cameras I use most, a P45+, Canon 5D MkII, and a Canon G10. The total DxO scores are P45+ 77.2, 5D MkII 79.0, and G10 37.8...
DxO give three separate scores, Color Depth, Dynamic range, and Lowlight ISO. The respective scores are P45+ 24.2, 12.9, 622, 5D MkII 23.7, 11.9, 1815, and G10 19.5, 10.0, 157.
To me the total DxO score is a pointless exercise in pretending that one can reduce a multi-dimensional subject to a single number. Averaging measures of different quantities relies on a weighting of the relative importance of those characteristics, and if this weighting is possible at all, it must vary with the particular user's priorities (or the particular combination of tasks that the user is planning to use the equipment for), not the decree of the testing site.
The various component measures are far more worthwhile, and the results are thoroughly predictable. The P45+ is clearly ahead on dynamic range and its colorized cousin, color depth, while the 5DMkII is way ahead on low light performance. Meanwhile the compact is last in all three listed categories, but way ahead in the absent but sometimes important categories of bulk and price.
-
I figure that I'll just go buy two G10s. That'll put me right under the P45+ on DxO Mark at 75.6
-
I took a shot [...] I used a Sony A900 with a SAL 135 mm ZA and on the other a Phase One P30 on a Mamiya 645 with an AF 150 mm lens [...]. Both shot at f/8 under studio strobes. Processed with the best-possible raw converter that could extract the most of acuity for each file and sharpened to taste until they looked at their best. [...]
I printed on an Canon Pixma Pro 9500 on glossy tabloid-size paper [...] the two art directors picked the print from the Phase One back on a matter of few seconds without even looking too close. [...] They simply said something on the line of "this print has more crispiness and somehow more life and better nuances than the other one." That is pretty much what I also saw when the prints popped out from my printer as well. They were very close, colors were pretty similar, yet there was something in one print that the other did not have.
And this is exactly the kind of difference that you would see when doing the same experiment with one darkroom print made from the finest 35-mm film camera and another darkroom print of the same subject shot with a high-end medium-format film camera. Size matters! Regarding sheer image quality, there is nothing that can replace image format ... except more image format. This used to be true 30 or 100 years ago, and it still is true today. Analog vs digital hasn't changed anything in this regard.
So no matter how good APS-C-format or 35-mm full-frame DSLR cameras eventually will become---based on the same overall level of technology, medium-format digital backs (or the upcoming Leica S2 30 × 45 mm format) always will be a few notches ahead.
For the individual photographer however (particularly the hobbyists) the question always was, and will always be: what's good enough for me, and what am I willing to spend? Today's 35-mm full-frame DSLR cameras are clearly better than medium-format roll film ever used to be---and that's damn good for sure. In the past, most demanding, or 'ambitious,' hobbyists were happy with less.
... the latest Photo Techniques magazine has a good article about the relationship between diffraction and pixel pitch.
As a matter of fact, there is no relation between diffraction and pixel pitch. Instead, there is a relation between diffraction and image format: the smaller the format, the higher the influence of diffraction on image quality. Contrary to common belief, pixel pitch has nothing to do with it.
It is similar to what Michael R. mentioned in his latest article, 'Eyes vs Numbers.' Just like different (high and very high) film resolutions will show through on low-resolution printing paper, diffraction blur will show through in the final image even when the sensor's pixel pitch was wider than the diffraction's Airy disk's diameter. Or the quality and character of a high-end stereo amplifier will show through even with a pair of cheap low-end speakers.
-- Olaf
-
I would like to illustrate that even in my own recent modest purchase of a Canon 50D + 100 macro the difference in value is clear:
Canon 50D = $1,100
Canon 100 mm macro = $490
TOTAL PRICE = $1,590
By comparison, if I were to order the comparable setup from Nikon, it would have cost me the following:
Nikon D300 = $1,490
Micro Nikkor 105 mm = $800
TOTAL PRICE = $2,290
Just with these two items, that is a $700 difference in price. That $700 "price difference" of the Canon product line allowed me the luxury to include the following "extra" for my Canon system: the Canon Macro MT-24EX Ringlight Flash which is $685. In other words I get the Canon body, the 100 mm macro, and Canon's best MT-24 macro ringlight flash for $15 less than what Nikon offers in just the back and the lens with its system.
So I absolutely agree, it's not just the back, it's the entire system that one must consider as having value to one's own needs and budget. And with the addition of Canon's stellar MT-24 ringlight flash to its already wonderful 100 mm macro ... all attached at the end of the 50D ... for less expense than the comparable Nikon withOUT any ringlight flash ... only someone not very honest with themselves can't admit that the Canon system offers, by far, the better value for the money.
And when you pull out your calculator, and start adding things up, no matter how you slice it and no matter what system you try to put together, the Canon system will offer you more options, top caliber optics, all for less money out of your pocket, than any other system being offered at this time. Pull out your calculators and piece "your needs" together and see if this doesn't ring true, time and again.
Yes, there are a certain few Nikkor lenses that come higher in quality ... and maybe during this brief moment in time the D3x offers slightly better resolution/ISO performance ... but as an overall value (which is the subject of this thread) the Nikon system falls woefully short, ultimately offering you less product for more money, time and again.
I would like to add that if it were the Nikon system that offered me the best value for my needs, and got me more wonderful products for my money, that I would be a Nikon owner instead. It is not "the name" I am buying, but the combination of performance/value. But choosing Nikon would have meant my money would have left my wallet much faster, and that to enjoy a variety of options in my photography would have come much slower, and there is no way around this FACT. And I simply go limp at such a prospect: my wallet empties quickly but my bag fills slowly. For some reason I find that deflating. For some reason I can't call that "value."
With Canon, my wallet doesn't get empty as quickly, but yet my bag fills up with neat and very capable options much faster. And that pumps me up. That is simply the very definition of "value." Again, pull out your own calculators, wherever you live, and this truth will always pan out in the end, time and again.
Jack
.
-
The problem there is that Canon and Nikon fit models between each other, so it's hard to directly compare. You could go with the D90 to save more. Plus, that 105 macro has IS. You should try pricing an A700 and Sony 100 macro, as that is more direct competition, price and feature wise.
-
All will be revealed in good time.
Michael
Wasn't that the line of the former governor of Illinois who claimed that the testimony of the angels and the Mother of God (he could have added Goldilocks and the three bears) would establish the purity of his character?
Isn't part of IQ composition & design, sometimes abstraction, sometimes as worldly as a scene of church officials counting the Sunday take on the break room table while watching a Green Bay Packers game? Aren't some of our most important concerns keeping the viewer's gaze within the canvas, to carry our viewers to the edge of every element in the image and not let them out? Beethoven does not let the listener dream. Ansel Adams gives order, proportion and dazzling composition within the nobility of silver. Delicate, sensitive and mysteriously compelling images that just happen to also have considerable IQ. Some lines were diminished since they were esthetically irrelevant. He delivers prints that shine like essences. Even their presentation and display are forms of metaphor.
Some of my best work (and largest print sizes) is with Painter X, an 8-bit program. It is shot with professional gear simply because that gear is sometimes treated like a police department mag light. My 1D3 & 1Ds3 always get the shots. Cost is not much of an issue since I write it off my taxes anyway. Reliability is an issue. I cannot convey this particular passage of light, the shadow on the extended arm, the meticulous but fantastic portraits (and not some pretty Mom & baby that is no better than images gracing the plastic wrap on toilet paper) or the industrial landscape of wintry grime that is still, somehow, even if beleagured, awesome and human if my camera does not work or cannot capture the particular dynamic range of the scene.
Stu
-
With Canon, my wallet doesn't get empty as quickly, but yet my bag fills up with neat and very capable options much faster. And pumps me up. That is simply the very definition of "value." Again, pull out your own calculators, wherever you live, and this truth will always pan out in the end, time and again.
I think you are putting too much of an absolute on price. Value is a combination of price and performance, among other factors, and the only one with a clear number attached to it is price. Further, you seem hellbent on showing that Canon is better than Nikon at everything, which is clearly not the case.
When Nikon released the 14-24mm, they turned the ultra-wide world around by showing that a zoom could outperform even prime lenses in what are commonly acknowledged to be difficult focal lengths to design well. And they did so at a (relatively) incredibly low price point.
Nikon D3x: 8000
Nikon 24-70: 1700
Nikon 14-24: 1580
Total: 11280
Canon 1DsIII: 6550
Canon 24-70: 1265
Canon 14mm II: 2020
Canon 16-35 II: 1450
Total: 11285
With equivalent focal length coverage from 14mm to 70mm on FF, 20MP+ cameras, the two system costs even out. Actually, the Nikon is ahead as there's one less lens to carry, it has more resolution and it's $5 cheaper. And, as many have observed, at this time it produces the best images from a DSLR camera at any price point. Not to mention that 14-24, which many Canon shooters use on their 1DsIII's.
Here, the value is with the Nikon system, despite the oft derided $8000 price tag of the D3x. Price, while a convenient number we can factor into the value of a system, is not the penultimate decider you make it out to be. It is, as all the other attributes, a subjective and personal factor but one that cannot be blindly added up.
-
Or the quality and character of a high-end stereo amplifier will show through even with a pair of cheap low-end speakers.
-- Olaf
I'm very skeptical of this claim. Can you point to any double blind tests? I no longer fuss about hi fi matters, but I used to. The impression I got was that high-end amplifiers are largely a con, or to put it more politely, they have a placebo effect on the gullible. When listeners are removed from the comforting knowledge of which amplifier is in use, during controlled tests, they are generally unable to distinguish between amplifiers that vary wildly in price. The exception might be the valve amplifiers where second order harmonic distortion is actually added (or is not removed). The specs tell you that the distortion should be audible, and it is audible. There's no contradiction there. It's just that the distortion can be musical in its own right.
-
The problem there is that Canon and Nikon fit models between each other, so it's hard to directly compare. You could go with the D90 to save more. Plus, that 105 macro has IS. You should try pricing an A700 and Sony 100 macro, as that is more direct competition, price and feature wise.
I disagree, but I do see your point. I think you can directly compare, factor-in the little differences, and see whether the differences/price points benefit you or not.
With the Nikon, the extra dimensions that "IS" give me to macrophotography are minimal compared to the extra dimensions a fully-functional ringlight flash offers me. I could also get a top-end tripod for the extra $700 price difference that would add more stability for shooting also. But with a ringlight flash, that automatically allows me to default to 250 and the system adjusts the rest, my ability to hand-hold and get sharper shots is 100x better than "IS" and no ringlight, especially in nighttime.
And if I compare the Sony product, it is almost pitiful. Their A700 is $1,500, their 100 mm macro is $640, and the system has no macro ringlight product at all ... and I have to pay $2,140 for this. So again, I see the advantage go to purchasing Canon. If I purchase the equivalent in the 50D and 100 mm, I save $550, and I have a better camera and a better lens.
With the Nikon, the quality difference is more of a toss-up, but there is no question that saving $700 with Canon gives me the better value, so much so that I can add the best ringlight flash in the industry to my macro set-up and still save $15 over the Nikon w/ no ringlight flash.
Jack
.
-
Here, the value is with the Nikon system, despite the oft derided $8000 price tag of the D3x. Price, while a convenient number we can factor into the value of a system, is not the penultimate decider you make it out to be. It is, as all the other attributes, a subjective and personal factor but one that cannot be blindly added up.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if all interchangeable lenses could be attached to any brand of DSLR and remain fully functional. We could then have the best of both worlds and the public would be truly well served.
-
I think you are putting too much of an absolute on price. Value is a combination of price and performance, among other factors, and the only one with a clear number attached to it is price. Further, you seem hellbent on showing that Canon is better than Nikon at everything, which is clearly not the case.
When Nikon released the 14-24mm, they turned the ultra-wide world around by showing that a zoom could outperform even prime lenses in what are commonly acknowledged to be difficult focal lengths to design well. And they did so at a (relatively) incredibly low price point.
Nikon D3x: 8000
Nikon 24-70: 1700
Nikon 14-24: 1580
Total: 11280
Canon 1DsIII: 6550
Canon 24-70: 1265
Canon 14mm II: 2020
Canon 16-35 II: 1450
Total: 11285
With equivalent focal length coverage from 14mm to 70mm on FF, 20MP+ cameras, the two system costs even out. Actually, the Nikon is ahead as there's one less lens to carry, it has more resolution and it's $5 cheaper. And, as many have observed, at this time it produces the best images from a DSLR camera at any price point. Not to mention that 14-24, which many Canon shooters use on their 1DsIII's.
Here, the value is with the Nikon system, despite the oft derided $8000 price tag of the D3x. Price, while a convenient number we can factor into the value of a system, is not the penultimate decider you make it out to be. It is, as all the other attributes, a subjective and personal factor but one that cannot be blindly added up.
Not that I really want to get involved this Canon vs Nikon debate, but is it just me or have you just added an additional prime to the Canon list?
If you really are trying to compare ‘Apples to Apples’ then maybe you should have picked the lenses that actually match both systems. i.e. instead of the Nikon 12-24, why not the 17-35 f2.8?
I’m sure you are just trying to prove some point here about the value of the Nikon 12-24, but I’m sure the Canon guy will be able to talk about lenses within the Canon camp which are not available in the Nikon range (Canon MP-E, 17-35 L f4, 24-104 f4 L, 70-200 f4 etc)
I'm not backing Canon here, neither am I backing Nikon. I own a Sony, and yes Ringlights are available - either 3rd party or on the secondhand market - maybe not ideal, but it's not ideal Nikon doesn't have a f4 zoom range, it's not ideal that Canon's AF isn't considered as good as the Nikon... etc.
There will be no conclusion to this discussion, just wasted hours posting about theoretical prices of gear.
-
And if I compare the Sony product, it is almost pitiful. Their A700 is $1,500, their 100 mm macro is $640, and the system has no macro ringlight product at all ... and I have to pay $2,140 for this. So again, I see the advantage go to purchasing Canon. If I purchase the equivalent in the 50D and 100 mm, I save $550, and I have a better camera and a better lens.
The A700 is $1000, not $1500.
I am quite happy you are so happy with your setup (and your point about the lack of Sony ringflash is correct), but please stop with the "everything sucks but Canon" FUD. It's unbecoming.
-
I think you are putting too much of an absolute on price. Value is a combination of price and performance, among other factors, and the only one with a clear number attached to it is price. Further, you seem hellbent on showing that Canon is better than Nikon at everything, which is clearly not the case.
This is not so. I said the difference in price AND performance in my rant, and Canon does offer better price and performance than Nikon. That Nikon may have a lens or two, and one body, that performs better than Canon still is offset by its much higher price across the board.
When Nikon released the 14-24mm, they turned the ultra-wide world around by showing that a zoom could outperform even prime lenses in what are commonly acknowledged to be difficult focal lengths to design well. And they did so at a (relatively) incredibly low price point.
I agree, that is a single great lens. But everything else from Nikon is more money w/o being so great in difference. If I were a pro photographer making 40" landscapes for a living, I might have to dig deeper and get this lens and the D3x, but I am not. I like the long-end of a zoom, and the close-up of macro, and the Canon system offers by far the better macro and telephoto products, and for a lot less money too.
Nikon D3x: 8000
Nikon 24-70: 1700
Nikon 14-24: 1580
Total: 11280
Canon 1DsIII: 6550
Canon 24-70: 1265
Canon 14mm II: 2020
Canon 16-35 II: 1450
Total: 11285
With equivalent focal length coverage from 14mm to 70mm on FF, 20MP+ cameras, the two system costs even out. Actually, the Nikon is ahead as there's one less lens to carry, it has more resolution and it's $5 cheaper. And, as many have observed, at this time it produces the best images from a DSLR camera at any price point. Not to mention that 14-24, which many Canon shooters use on their 1DsIII's.
Good example. Within the context of these limited ranges, I do agree Nikon equals the Canon in value. Perhaps surpasses them with those particular lenses. However, if I wanted to add macro lenses/equipment to my bag, and/or telephoto lenses/equipment also, Canon pulls ahead in value by a country mile. If Nikon were equal-to (or offered more) for less in its complete system, then I would say its system has to be considered the greatest value. However, when a full system is built, it ultimately costs several thousand dollars more to go the Nikon route, which makes the Canon system the overall greater value for the money.
Here, the value is with the Nikon system, despite the oft derided $8000 price tag of the D3x. Price, while a convenient number we can factor into the value of a system, is not the penultimate decider you make it out to be. It is, as all the other attributes, a subjective and personal factor but one that cannot be blindly added up.
I didn't blindly add-up anything; you selectively looked at but a fraction of each manufacturer's offerings. In truth, if you put together a complete system ... from pro macro, to pro wide-angle, to pro standard portrait, to pro telephoto ... you can do a whole lot more with a Canon system for a whole lot less money out of your pocket. If your particular needs only involve a limited range of each company's offerings, as the one you articulated, then I do agree Nikon offers better quality for even money.
But if a person wants to eventually build a whole camera system, then Canon ultimately offers equal-to (and in most cases superior quality), as well as BY FAR more creative options, for thousands of dollars less spent.
Jack
.
-
The A700 is $1000, not $1500.
I am quite happy you are so happy with your setup (and your point about the lack of Sony ringflash is correct), but please stop with the "everything sucks but Canon" FUD. It's unbecoming.
What is unbecoming is your perversion of what I have said.
I never said "everything sucks" but Canon; I said everyone else offers LESS PRODUCT for "more money" than Canon, and that is a fact.
Since the subject of this thread is VALUE, I do believe my points are relevent to the discussion, unlike your crying over the truth.
Sony costs more than Canon and offers no ringlight. Nikon costs over $1200 more than Canon to include its ringlight.
These are the facts as they pertain to "value for the money," and they are indisputable.
Jack
-
If you really are trying to compare ‘Apples to Apples’ then maybe you should have picked the lenses that actually match both systems. i.e. instead of the Nikon 12-24, why not the 17-35 f2.8?
This is why.
[attachment=11350:Nikkor_14_24_PZ.jpg]
14mm is also significantly wider than 17mm.
-
This is why.
[attachment=11350:Nikkor_14_24_PZ.jpg]
14mm is also significantly wider than 17mm.
Cool. Very impressive.
Does the 14-24 accept Lee filters for Landscape work?
edit...I'm just trying to understand what 'value' the Nikon 17-35 f2.8 brings to the Nikon system when the 14-24 is so good.
-
Cool. Very impressive.
Does the 14-24 accept Lee filters for Landscape work?
I wouldn't think so, but I'm not certain. It has a fixed petal type lens hood and a very bulbous front element. it certainly doesn't accept normal screw-on filters.
-
Have I missed something, or is this my-camera-is-cheaper-than-your-camera ranting a new twist to fanboyism?
-- Olaf
-
edit...I'm just trying to understand what 'value' the Nikon 17-35 f2.8 brings to the Nikon system when the 14-24 is so good.
The value that the 17-35 brings into the Nikon system is that it covers a more useful range for 'general' shooting (plus it takes filters as you mentioned). The 17-35 + 24 - 70 combo is a more flexible combination in this respect unless you really use that extra 3mm often (which makes a big difference in angle of view, mind you).
Now the problem is that the 17-35 is not as good as the 14-24 especially wide open and in the edges. But it still brings value to the system. Unfortunately Nikon have just recently discontinued it, so it is not officially part of the Nikon system anymore. So I guess it brings no value to the Nikon system.
-
Have I missed something, or is this my-camera-is-cheaper-than-your-camera ranting a new twist to fanboyism?
-- Olaf
Yes, you are missing something: the honesty and integrity to admit the truth.
You have not one, single factual leg to stand on showing how a person could build a better, more complete camera system ... for less money ... than a person could build a full and complete Canon camera system. You don't have a leg to stand on. So what you have done is digress to infantilism by throwing out the "fanboy" moniker, rather than admit this factual conclusion, without even possessing the nutsack to direct this gratuitous term at anyone in particular.
Now, regarding the subject of value, if you (or anyone reading) can show me the facts of how a person might build a complete top-shelf DSLR camera system, equal-to or better than the Canon, encompassing a broader range of potential options, and to do it for less money, then I will stand refuted as to my statements of overall value for the money.
But unless and until someone can actually do this, put together a complete, top-shelf DSLR system for less expense than a Canon system, y'all will have to admit that anyone looking to get into a camera system can get more potential options, and can save themselves a ton of money too, by going the Canon system route.
This is not "fanboyism"; this is a fact.
This doesn't mean there aren't other fine systems. This doesn't mean there aren't some very good "particular combinations" where another brand eclipses what Canon has to offer. What it means is these fine systems are either much more limited in the range and scope of where they shine, but are still lacking overall ... and/or that they cost more money to put together. These indisputable facts diminish their "value for the money" from a whole-system perspective.
I don't see what is so hard to accept about this truth. It's right there for anyone to add-up and measure for themselves. So please, either come up with some facts, which means $$ numbers and product descriptions of a complete system, for less, and thereby show my statements to be in err, or admit what I have said is the truth.
Thanks,
Jack
.
-
Have I missed something, or is this my-camera-is-cheaper-than-your-camera ranting a new twist to fanboyism?
-- Olaf
Yes it has. It's now 'Canon vs Nikon - the pointless discussion.'
The value that the 17-35 brings into the Nikon system is that it covers a more useful range for 'general' shooting (plus it takes filters as you mentioned). The 17-35 + 24 - 70 combo is a more flexible combination in this respect unless you really use that extra 3mm often (which makes a big difference in angle of view, mind you).
Now the problem is that the 17-35 is not as good as the 14-24 especially wide open and in the edges. But it still brings value to the system. Unfortunately Nikon have just recently discontinued it, so it is not officially part of the Nikon system anymore. So I guess it brings no value to the Nikon system.
I didn't know that the 17-35 was discontinued. I did know the 14-24 didn't take any form of filters on the front as it's pretty well known fact. Same goes for the Sigma 12-24 and 15-30. I was playing devils advocate after someone pushed a pile of MTF figures in my face as if it was some kind of 'second coming'.
-
It just depends on what you value. Canon only makes one camera the viewfinder of which I think is acceptable (1D Mk III) and it's a reduced frame camera.
While they have good lenses with reasonable prices in the USA, I don't consider the ergonomics acceptable and so this gear doesn't even enter the point where I would consider price. This is how I feel, you may consider them great value for your uses.
-
Yes, you are missing something: the honesty and integrity to admit the truth.
You have not one, single factual leg to stand on showing how a person could build a better, more complete camera system ... for less money ... than a person could build a full and complete Canon camera system. You don't have a leg to stand on. So what you have done is digress to infantilism by throwing out the "fanboy" moniker, rather than admit this factual conclusion, without even possessing the nutsack to direct this gratuitous term at anyone in particular.
Now, regarding the subject of value, if you (or anyone reading) can show me the facts of how a person might build a complete top-shelf DSLR camera system, equal-to or better than the Canon, encompassing a broader range of potential options, and to do it for less money, then I will stand refuted as to my statements of overall value for the money.
But unless and until someone can actually do this, put together a complete, top-shelf DSLR system for less expense than a Canon system, y'all will have to admit that anyone looking to get into a camera system can get more potential options, and can save themselves a ton of money too, by going the Canon system route.
This is not "fanboyism"; this is a fact.
This doesn't mean there aren't other fine systems. This doesn't mean there aren't some very good "particular combinations" where another brand eclipses what Canon has to offer. What it means is these fine systems are either much more limited in the range and scope of where they shine, but are still lacking overall ... and/or that they cost more money to put together. These indisputable facts diminish their "value for the money" from a whole-system perspective.
I don't see what is so hard to accept about this truth. It's right there for anyone to add-up and measure for themselves. So please, either come up with some facts, which means $$ numbers and product descriptions of a complete system, for less, and thereby show my statements to be in err, or admit what I have said is the truth.
Thanks,
Jack
Wow, you're really quite upset about this, eh? Do you perhaps think your constant use of the word "best", "indisputable", and "top shelf" are, I dunno, subjective? As a macro and telephoto shooter you are probably right, Canon is the most economical proposition around, however, most people aren't dedicated to those two things and so the general economics are a bit of a wash w/r/t system choice.
You are abrasive and childish, not Olaf. And to accuse somebody you don't know of not having "honesty and integrity" for disagreeing with your wildly subjective remarks is clinical.
If you feel the desperate need to justify your purchases, please don't derail an otherwise interesting thread.
-
Well, without entering a debate which I see is argumentative and opinionated, rather than factual, I'll add the following.
I photograph a wide variety of subjects in a wide variety of locales every year. I have deliberately made the switch to a Sony A900 for 2009 (even though I also have full Canon and Nikon outfits) because I feel that the system offered is complete enough to meet my varying needs. For instances, I had the latest Nikon, Canon and Phase One systems with me recently in Antarctica I chose to use the Sonys for about 75% of my shooting, and if I didn't have test reports to write likely would have used them more.
The reason is simple – I like the way they handle. As a photographer for some 40+ years and experience using just about every camera made in the past half century I find the A900 about as close to an ideal balance of features and straightforwardness as I have yet seen in a digital camera. As for the lenses, they are of a very high caliber, and I don't hesitate to use them for ANY purpose as they are fully comparable to anything from Canon or Nikon. The few holes in the line are quickly being filled, or are available from third parties.
Why does the A900 represent value? Because it offers a very attractive combination of price, features and handling, as well of course as very fine image quality. Why does the P65+ also represent value (to me)? Because it produces the highest quality images I have ever seen from any photographic device. Why is this so hard to understand?
We all have different needs and interests. Why some people feel it necessary to be combatative over this is something that I never fail to find amazing.
Michael
"The reason is simple – I like the way they handle."
An excellent reason.
"Why does the P65+ also represent value (to me)? Because it produces the highest quality images I have ever seen from any photographic device."
Another excellent reason.
A third excellent reason, for most of us: We have a lot of time invested in learning a camera system. An hour after I got my D3, I was functioning as well with it as I did with a D2x because I know Nikon; I had a D1x and a D2x and film cameras going back to the F3. Canons feel weird to me as did Minoltas (I've not tried a Sony). I'm NOT saying that there is *anything at all* wrong with them, they're just not Nikons and so my hands don't know them. Also, I'm intensely busy all the time, and I'm not a professional photographer, though I use cameras in my work, and having to learn new cameras and new software would automatically mean poor value, because it would take a lot of my time and I don't have the time.
My son uses Canons and he has something of the same attitude about Canons.
For me, this also applies to software. I have settled on Adobe Lightroom because it's "good enough" and while I have nothing at all against C1 or the Aperture system or even the Nikon software, learning them (for me) would almost automatically represent poor value because I don't need ultimate quality as much as I need excellent quality, and I get that from Lightroom, and learning the others would take a lot of time. For many of us, if time isn't exactly money, it's certainly valuable.
JC
-
I never said "everything sucks" but Canon; I said everyone else offers LESS PRODUCT for "more money" than Canon, and that is a fact.
Since the subject of this thread is VALUE, I do believe my points are relevent to the discussion, unlike your crying over the truth.
Sony costs more than Canon and offers no ringlight. Nikon costs over $1200 more than Canon to include its ringlight.
These are the facts as they pertain to "value for the money," and they are indisputable.
Jack
Ain't the internet great? I learn so much, and enrich my life in ways I could not have imagined before.
Okay, you can all carry on fighting again ...
-
The reason is simple – I like the way they handle.
This is a perfectly reasonable and a 100% subjective reason to prefer them.
As for the lenses, they are of a very high caliber, and I don't hesitate to use them for ANY purpose as they are fully comparable to anything from Canon or Nikon.
They had better be! Let's look at the prices:
Sony 500/4: none available !
Sony 300/2.8: 6672€
Nikon 300/2.8: 4999€
Sony 100/2.8 macro 822€
Nikon 105/2.8 VR Micro 799€
Sony 180 or 200mm f/2.8 prime - none available!
Sony 50/1.4 389€ (screwdriver AF)
Nikon 50/1.4D 299€ (same; AF-S version a bit more expensive)
Sony 35/1.4 was not found in the lists of the store
Nikon 35/2 350€
Sony Zeiss 16-35/2.8 1648€
Nikon 14-24/2.8 1599€
These are local prices. I checked B&H also and the relative prices were similar. In other words, many lenses of comparable specs from Sony are substantially more expensive than those from Nikon, and there are many important gaps which basically prevent many people who are serious about photography from investing in Sony, since they can only afford one system.
The few holes in the line are quickly being filled, or are available from third parties.
Or maybe the production of the whole system is ended. No one knows what happens in the future.
I have a question: if you only had money to buy one DSLR system for life, would it be Sony? If you can honestly say that, then maybe there is something there.
If not, why then are you recommending it? I think you're recommending it because you like to go from one camera to the next at a rapid rate, and this happens to be your latest affair. Since you spend virtually an unlimited amount of money on photo gear, you never have to make a lasting commitment to any one camera. Most of us are in a completely different situation. This is why your arguments on value can not be taken seriously. You're not in the same position with the people you write to, nor are able to put yourself to think like you were.
Why does the P65+ also represent value (to me)? Because it produces the highest quality images I have ever seen from any photographic device. Why is this so hard to understand?
No, it isn't hard to understand but it completely undermines your credibility to complain about the D3X's price.
-
Sony costs more than Canon and offers no ringlight. Nikon costs over $1200 more than Canon to include its ringlight.
Jack
Sony HVL-RLAM Ring Light (http://www.dyxum.com/flashes/detail.asp?IDFlash=185)
Sony HVL-MT24AM Macro Twin Flash Kit (http://www.dyxum.com/flashes/detail.asp?IDFlash=184)
-
I can't be bothered to post the prices... too much effort... and this 'Sony lenses are more expensive' is really tiresome.
Take a look at a couple of the well know suppliers in the UK:
http://www.rgb-tech.co.uk/browse/56 (http://www.rgb-tech.co.uk/browse/56)
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/Home/default.aspx (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/Home/default.aspx)
Look up the prices of the f2.8 range from Canon, Nikon and Sony.
So, take a look at the 16ish-35ish, 24-70, 70-200 f2.8's and report back with which Sony lenses are more expensive.
We all are aware that there are gaps in the Sony system, but it has also been stated that the holes can easily be filled (in most cases) by 3rd party. We all know it's not ideal but that is the way it is at the moment, but as people have pointed out - the range is growing (not that you'd know, and why should you care). Capturing good photos is not about how much equipment you own, it's about picture taking - and most people I know ragardless of whether they use Canon, Nikon or Sony do not carry so much gear they need a trailer behind the car to carry the heavy load! It's about whether the photographer can do the job or not with the gear that is available. If he of she can't, switching systems is they way they get to where they need to be. If you are happy paying the $$ for the D3x, fine go ahead; personally I don't know many people who have considered the D3x unless they actually earn a living from their camera.
If you have friends that own different systems, then you quickly pick up that 'the grass is not always greener on the other side'. I have two Nikon friends looking for a 25MP FF camera at the same price as the D700 (the D3x price has frightened then so much they've considered switching to Canon). I have a Canon 5D2 owner that loves the IQ at high ISO's - but is frustrated that the camera struggles to focus in low light (limiting the low light performance). And I have the a900 which if when we've compared printed images at ISO's 1600 and above - shows the 5D2 ahead in it's low light performance. Luckly these friends are not 'blinkered' and are very quick to point out the positives and negatives of cameras within minutes of picking up any one of our cameras.
Why is Michael planning on using the a900 for 2009? I guess he's shared with us what he'd like too and good luck to him. Maybe one of the reasons is that he's interested in finding out whether the 'system limitations' of the Sony system are a reality or just an urban myth from the 'fanboy' clubs.
-
I think the bigger point of Michael's article is to simply point out a consideration that DxO doesn't reflect, or at least not very well (for instance, by ignoring resolution). For Michael, the A900 represents a good value, for someone else under different circumstances it might not.
I feel that his article was very timely for me because I'm going through the buying decision right now (pending the sale of my 4x5 gear to supply some of the funds). I have no digital system and my 35mm gear is old Olympus OM gear that I bought used so I know whatever the choice I go for I'm giving up the use of my existing lenses (well okay, I could use them on a Canon body but only with stopdown metering). Since I bought them used that's not a significant loss of investment and they've given me several years of service.
So having decided to bite the bullet and go for a full-frame DSLR I'm finding myself asking a lot of the questions of value and what I'm looking for. If I'm going for a current body it's down to the A900, 5DmkII or D700, all of which are around the same price. This leaves me with a number of questions that I'm struggling to answer in terms of what "value" means to me:
- How important is 20+mp resolution to me? (If that's a major factor then the D700 is out right there)
- How do the bodies handle? (I've only had the chance to briefly handle the D700 and haven't tried the other 2 yet)
- How important is high ISO to me? (If that's a major factor then the A900 is eliminated)
- How attached am I to using Lightroom as my workflow? Given reports that Aperture or C1 provide better output from the A900 does this rule out that body or am I willing to live with the additional step?
- Will I want to still shoot some film and acquire a film body? (All 3 would allow this in some way, but the features of that body could affect the decision as well)
- What specialty lenses (if any) do I want to use?
- How much of an issue is the non-standard hotshoe on the A900?
Note that none of these talk about the actual quality of the cameras in question. These are all questions regarding what my priorities are and what tradeoffs I'm prepared to make. I have no doubt that all 3 cameras are capable of producing excellent images when one takes the time to learn the strengths and weaknesses of that camera and how to squeeze the best quality from them. This is a question of "what provides the best value to me?"
-
So something is cheaper than something that is more expensive. This seems to sum up the later stages of this discussion so far.
I can't quite believe this is the sum total of brain capacity, especially as it would seem 'value' is being equated with the same marketing strategy as 'value' lines in a supermarket. I have long suspected that DSLR's were the upper tier equivalent of buying baked beans, but now it is confirmed. The fact that this is on page six should warn everybody that no meaningful discussion is still in progress.
Steve
-
Wow, you're really quite upset about this, eh? Do you perhaps think your constant use of the word "best", "indisputable", and "top shelf" are, I dunno, subjective?
No, I believe the features, advantages, variety, and low cost substantiate the use of these words. What I think you are is, I dunno, living in denial over this fact.
As a macro and telephoto shooter you are probably right, Canon is the most economical proposition around,
And then you turn right around and agree with me and admit I am right. Classic.
however, most people aren't dedicated to those two things and so the general economics are a bit of a wash w/r/t system choice.
I think most people like these things, only professional landscapers and portrait shooters do not. If Canon offers thousands of dollars in superior value close-up as well as far away, but Nikon offers even money in portraiture and lanscape, then overall Canon is the better system value. Only in very limited and specific instances does Nikon prove advantageous. If your profession makes its best use in these specific instances, then I would agree Nikon is the better value.
You are abrasive and childish, not Olaf. And to accuse somebody you don't know of not having "honesty and integrity" for disagreeing with your wildly subjective remarks is clinical.
Well, the very fact you name yourself "lattiboy" indicates you're well aware of your own maturity. And what I find clinical is for you to pipe-up at all, accusing me of fanboyism, and then to spit out an admission that I was right all along.
If you feel the desperate need to justify your purchases, please don't derail an otherwise interesting thread.
I am not in any way desperate, nor have I derailed any thread, as my comments were directly on target. You are the punk who calls your own self "boy" and who yet has tried to accuse "me" of being childish. If you want to continue to describe yourself as a "boy," go right ahead as it clearly fits. But leave your own childish and personal comments to yourself. I made no personal comments before you and the other mouth took it there. So look in the mirror for the topic derailer here.
My posts were not personal to anyone. They were factual as to both price and value.
FACT 1 (Telephoto): I can buy a Canon 50D + 600 mm lens, a $700 Gitzo tripod, a $600 Wimberly head, a $400 pro Tamrack backpack, and a $500 100 mm macro lens ... for the same price as just a Nikon D300 and a 600mm lens. This is not "fanboyism"; this is a GD fact that Canon offers BY FAR the greater value.
FACT 2 (Macro): I can buy a Canon 50D + 100 mm macro lens, a Macro Twin Lite MT-24EX Flash, a Giottos multi-positional Tripod, and a Novoflex double-macrorail head ... for the same price as just a Nikon D300, a MicroNikkor 105mm lens, and a their R1C1 WirelessSpeedlight Flash. That is not "fanboyism" that is another fact that Canon offers BY FAR the greater value.
FACT 3 (SuperWide/Portrait): RafalA pointed I could get a Nikon D3x, a 14-24 lens, a 24-70 lens for the exact same money as a Canon 1DsIII, plus 3 equivalent lenses. For the same money (no actual savings) I would get *slightly* better picture quality. This is not a savings of any money, but it *IS* an increase in quality performance coming from Nikon, within this limited type of photography. Therefore, the nod must go to Nikon here. That is not "fanboyism" either, I must simply admit a fact for what it is.
CONCLUSION (Whole System): Overall, Canon totally eclipses Nikon in giving you more options for thousands of dollars less spent. Canon's weakness is in wide-angle mostly, but overall Canon offers a landside advantage of lower price, more available options, and absolutely top quality photography.
These are the facts. Now, how does a man present these facts, crunch the numbers, and come out with a "Canon offers the best value" statement without you manly men accusing "fanboyism?" Who is being open and honest, with hard numbers, and who is crying like a bitch-boy over these numbers? Lattiboy, I think the truth is in your very name.
Jack
PS: Farmer, thank you for the correction on the Sony 24 ringlight flash. At $699 it is still more expensive than the Canon's $685 equivalent, it is less feature-full, the Sony A700 isn't quite what the Canon 50D is, and the Sony's 100mm macro isn't quite what the Canon 100 mm is either. All of these things are more expensive than Canon and not quite as good. To me, this makes Sony the poorer value. As Inissila showed, while its A900 is a nice back, the full Sony system is actually more expensive than the Nikon system, less feature-full also, which itself is more expensive (overall) and less feature-full than the Canon system.
-
http://old.photodo.com/prod/lens/minolta.shtml#Minolta (http://old.photodo.com/prod/lens/minolta.shtml#Minolta)
A good quick list. The 100mm seems to be among the best. Old Maxxum lenses are literally everywhere as well.
I'm not concerned about it, really, since there is the decade or two long list of Maxxum lenses out there as well that will fit the Sonys.
Getting back to another topic...
http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php (http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php)
Let's compare to the larget list including 35mm lenses that will work.
Sony 500/4: none available !
There ARE a couple of 600/4s avaialble, used, though. Plus, a 300/4 and a 400/4.5 Close enough I say.(there also are two 500/8 models as well)
Sony 300/2.8: 6672€
Nikon 300/2.8: 4999€
Minolta AF 300/2.8 APO G (D) SSM (same thing, older manufacture): $4459 at B&H Photo(average price, used) Now, true, the Nikon is new, but if you HAVE to have such an expensive and dedicated lens, cost isn't a huge issue.
Sony 100/2.8 macro 822€
Nikon 105/2.8 VR Micro 799€
$589 at Amazon here in the U.S. Less, used, of course. Both are excellent lenses, though - $23€ isn't a factor, really.
Sony 180 or 200mm f/2.8 prime - none available!
But there is a nice 70-200 2.8... Yes, there is a 150-200mm or so gap, but Canon also has a few gaps.
Sony 50/1.4 389€ (screwdriver AF)
Nikon 50/1.4D 299€ (same; AF-S version a bit more expensive)
The identical Minolta lens from about a decade ago is a TAD(loads) less used, though... If we're talking used Maxxum lenses, it gets really cheap to fit an A900. That's the big deal here. full-frame and can finally use all of the older lenses again at no multiplier. Suddenly it IS a full pro platform again. And don't tell me real pros don't buy or know about used lenses, either.
Sony 35/1.4 was not found in the lists of the store
Nikon 35/2 350€
There is one, but it's a Zeiss lens and pricey. Okay, you got us there. So far, though, I fail to see any huge gaps.
Sony Zeiss 16-35/2.8 1648€
Nikon 14-24/2.8 1599€
Percentage-wise, not a real factor.
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp?IDLensType=1 (http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp?IDLensType=1)
Oh wait - things got murkier when you add in the other manufacturers...
http://kievcamera.net/catalog/product_info...products_id=191 (http://kievcamera.net/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=56&products_id=191)
35mm minolta mount t/s lens. $600 (manual focus in a t/s macro lens isn't
a detraction in my mind)
http://kievcamera.net/catalog/product_info...products_id=190 (http://kievcamera.net/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=56&products_id=190)
80mm for $340.
Like these two lenses. Though, to be fair, these two lenses do work with Nikon and Canon as well.
Full frame and backwards compatible with Maxxum lenses gives the A900 a proper place in pro photography again. That's why everyone's happy about the Sony. It used to be that Sony was kind of like the Olympus. Kludgy and barely compatible. It left the older users out of the game, so many sold their gear and moved elsewhere.
Now it's good again. 28mm is 28mm. Sensor is finally large enough. Loads of cheap glass is everywhere. And it's price-competitive. Is it better than a Canon or Nikon? I don't know. But it's surely not junk, either.
-
In Finland, that's where I live. Minolta high end lens prices also were more expensive here than Nikon's back in the 90s when they made film gear.
Anyway, I found B&H in New York to have similarly systematically higher prices for Sony lenses.
I can find lower prices for Nikon lenses than the ones I listed, e.g. at Grays of Westminster in London (who have the 14-24 for 1330€ or so and the 300/2.8 for 3733€, all new), but they don't sell Sony gear so i didn't think it would be fair. Second hand availability of older high end Nikon gear is excellent with many autofocus and manual focus lenses available.
What if you need an STF lens? What is Nikon going to do for you then?
I don't know what exactly that lens does but I have two DC Nikkors which have selectable spherical aberration adjustment to change the bokeh characteristics or if you want, to achieve a soft focus effect. Canon has a soft focus 135/2.8 too, though I suppose these lenses all have different characteristics. There is also the 85/1.4 Nikkor, famous for its bokeh.
Why can't we use our common sense to understand the very simple premise behind the Quality vs Value question?
The problem is that the question isn't simple at all. The value in a body can not be assessed without the context of the lenses, accessories, software, and support which all are needed.
Anyway, I am all for individual choice, the more products are available the better for everyone.
-
And if I compare the Sony product, it is almost pitiful. Their A700 is $1,500, their 100 mm macro is $640, and the system has no macro ringlight product at all ... and I have to pay $2,140 for this. So again, I see the advantage go to purchasing Canon. If I purchase the equivalent in the 50D and 100 mm, I save $550, and I have a better camera and a better lens.
Wrong on nearly all points. A700 is much cheaper than $1500, Metz has a ring flash for Sony and Sony has a ring LED. As far as a "better" lens and camera, I would disagree, but that's another topic.
-
Inissilla, there is no competable lens to the STF from any system. Truly unique.
-
He assumes the lenses that Nikon and Canon have, and Sony does not, have zero value. Any half-competent landscape and macro photographer will see the extremely high value in the PC-E/TS-E lenses, which makes a far greater difference to image quality in many contexts than 24 vs. 12 MP. Any wildlife/sports photographer would see the value in high-performance supertelephoto lenses - which Sony does not have. For available light portraiture I prefer to work with lenses that are easy to manual focus. I could go on and on - there are just so many things that a serious photographer would need that just aren't there in the Sony system.
Agreed that the Sony system is building up but is not *yet* as extensive as the Canon/Nikon lens lineups, even though the quality of the glass in the Sony range, is definitely exemplary, like the Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 ZA Sonnar or the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ZA Planar or the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 ZA Vario-Sonnar or the Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8 ZA Vario-sonnar SSM or the 70-200 f/2.8 G SSM or the 70-400 f/4-5.6 G SSM or the 70-300 G SSM or the 50mm and 100 mm Macros or the upcoming Zeiss 200mm f/3.5 Macro SSM or the 50mm f/1.4 or the 35mm f/1.4G or the 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye etc....not listing the APS-C-only lenses.
The key here is that most/several of the above are ultra-modern ultra-high-end designs. And unlike the Canon/Nikon systems, the 35mm f/1.4, the 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.4, the 135mm f/1.8, the 16-35 f/2.8, the 24-70 f/2.8, the Macros etc are ALL stabilized.
Some might argue that they are superhuman and don't need stabilization on 85mm and 135mm primes or on say a 100mm or 200mm macro, but I am talking about common folks who can take advantage of this feature on such primes.
Sure, for T/S lenses, one may have to rely on aftermarket alternatives including super-expensive ones like the Schneider.
For super-telephotos, until the ones Sony displayed on their roadmap, appears over the next year or so, you may need to rely on either legacy Minolta glass like the 400mm f/4.5 APO G or the 600mm f/4 APO G, or the currently available Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX APO or the Sigma 800mm f/5.6 EX DG APO or the Sigma 150-500 DG APO HSM or the Tamron 200-500 Di LD IF etc.
The key here is that for several types of professional applications, the Sony system is FULLY capable. While strategically, the holes in their lineup are being rapidly filled with ultra-modern and high-end designs. Having Zeiss on-board as an in-house high-end optics designer is not a bad thing. I personally would not rely a switch to the Sony system, solely on the presence of the A900 but on the larger view of how Sony is leveraging high-end optics, with top-notch camera products.
When a giant like Sony, picks up a traditional camera company like Minolta, they don't intend to play second fiddle for perpetuity. The push onto the top will simply not be far behind. Initially, Sony had intentions of "partnering" with Nikon but Nikon obviously realized that they would become a division of Sony, sooner rather than later and shied away.
PS: Note that when you find the letter "G" against a Sony/Minolta lens, it is the same designation as the Canon "L" - primarily premium glass. The ZA designation is for the Zeiss glass.
-
Wrong on nearly all points. A700 is much cheaper than $1500, Metz has a ring flash for Sony and Sony has a ring LED. As far as a "better" lens and camera, I would disagree, but that's another topic.
1. You're right on the A700--it is $100 cheaper than the 50D (the price I originally looked at was a kit);
2. We have already established that Sony in fact does have a ringlight ... that is $15 more expensive than Canon's;
3. The Sony Macro lens is likewise more than $200 more expensive than Canon's equivalent, making Sony the more expensive system overall.
4. The Sony has no answer to a 5:1 macro like Canon offers;
5. The Sony has no answer to the numerous super-telephoto lenses offered by Canon;
6. On the comparable lenses, Sony's are invariably more expensive.
If "BETTER VALUE" is defined as "the most options for the least money" ... and if "POORER VALUE" is defined as "less available options for more money" ... then the Canon system offers a better value as a whole system overall than Sony ... or you can say Sony offers a poorer value as a whole system overall than Canon ... however a person wishes to phrase it.
Jack
.
-
Phew...
What is it about human discourse that almost every discussion like this, particularly on the web, rapidly degenerates into polarised argument (I'm leaving Sony out of this for, er, argument's sake)? Take a look at the PPRUNE (Professional Pilots' Rumour Network) where people who are relied upon to fly us safely to our destinations frequently fall to yelling at each other about whether Boeing or Airbus is actually a pile of dangerous cr@p.
Nikon! BLAH! Canon! BLAH.
In the end, to anyone not actually obsessed by photographic technology, unlike most of us here, these squabbles must surely look quite insane.
-
Agreed that the Sony system is building up but is not *yet* as extensive as the Canon/Nikon lens lineups, even though the quality of the glass in the Sony range, is definitely exemplary, like the Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 ZA Sonnar or the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ZA Planar or the Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 ZA Vario-Sonnar or the Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8 ZA Vario-sonnar SSM or the 70-200 f/2.8 G SSM or the 70-400 f/4-5.6 G SSM or the 70-300 G SSM or the 50mm and 100 mm Macros or the upcoming Zeiss 200mm f/3.5 Macro SSM or the 50mm f/1.4 or the 35mm f/1.4G or the 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye etc....not listing the APS-C-only lenses.
Zeiss isn't Sony, however, and they are more expensive lenses.
Further, owners of Nikons & Canons can buy these lenses also, if they want. I myself might diverge from the "most for the least money" model and splurge on a Zeiss 200 mm macro, if it offers true 1:1 or better
Jack
.
-
Zeiss isn't Sony, however, and they are more expensive lenses.
Further, owners of Nikons & Canons can buy these lenses also, if they want. I myself might diverge from the "most for the least money" model and splurge on a Zeiss 200 mm macro, if it offers true 1:1 or better
Jack
.
Not all true. Zeiss ZA lenses are a collaboration between Sony and Zeiss, and are newer designs compared to their other 35mm, manual focus counterparts. The ZA lenses are considered part of the Sony line, whereas the ZF/ZE Zeiss lenses are true 3rd party lenses that are reversed engineered for the mount.
What we all need to remember is that the value of a system only extends out to what each of us need in a system. So, for Jack, the 50D and macro lens makes the perfect system, but this doesn't mean it's the perfect system for every shooter...or even most shooters.
-
The is like a play pen of toddlers each insisting that his toy is the best.
I think the Sony and Canon advocates are talking nonsense as Nikon is clearly best. For my needs. I couldn't give two hoots for the rest of you. Isn't that really what you mean? There is no objective conclusion as to which is best. Just as giving a camera body a score out of 10 is totally pointless. If you need MLU, and it ain't got it, then for you it's a zero. The Sony is rubbish for me. But for some it's the bees knees, or the gnat's nadgers.
Ooops sorry, I forgot I am supposed to push the Nikon brand, point out lenses it has, and the others don't, explain why Nikon lenses are superior ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
-
Sometimes, the difference in prices between Sony and the others is worth a round of drinks at the lounge.
-
Well, the very fact you name yourself "lattiboy" indicates you're well aware of your own maturity. And what I find clinical is for you to pipe-up at all, accusing me of fanboyism, and then to spit out an admission that I was right all along.....
.....You are the punk who calls your own self "boy" and who yet has tried to accuse "me" of being childish. If you want to continue to describe yourself as a "boy," go right ahead as it clearly fits. But leave your own childish and personal comments to yourself....
........how does a man present these facts, crunch the numbers, and come out with a "Canon offers the best value" statement without you manly men accusing "fanboyism?" Who is being open and honest, with hard numbers, and who is crying like a bitch-boy over these numbers? Lattiboy, I think the truth is in your very name.
Jack
Okaaay, so I'm just gonna go ahead an PLONK your messages from now on (google it), but I just thought I'd throw up three quick points.
1) Your wonderfully obvious insecurity as a man just hangs in the air like a thick fog.
2) All psychotic photog posters are the same (He was wrong too; didn't take into account the large buffer) (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=30430754)
3) You = Exhibit #154,124,546,489 of this theroy. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/)
-
What is it about human discourse that almost every discussion like this, particularly on the web, rapidly degenerates into polarised argument (I'm leaving Sony out of this for, er, argument's sake)? Take a look at the PPRUNE (Professional Pilots' Rumour Network) where people who are relied upon to fly us safely to our destinations frequently fall to yelling at each other about whether Boeing or Airbus is actually a pile of dangerous cr@p.
I think that has a lot to do with how poor plain text with smileys is as a communication medium but there is more to it. Sherry Turkle from the MIT has written very interesting stuff on this topic nearly 15 years ago...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherry_Turkle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherry_Turkle)
Besides, a lot of these discussions are triggered by provocative articles clipping some of the facts and are in fact meant to be.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What we all need to remember is that the value of a system only extends out to what each of us need in a system.
This is very true. The value of a system for you is what is most important. I think that discussions like these (while some idiots like to trivialize them) are actually important for some to clarify what their values in fact are, and choose the system whose strengths (in both purchase price and options) lie with their needs. For instance, if I were a landscape photographer looking to upgrade right now, I would probably go with the Nikon D3x and 14 mm.
So, for Jack, the 50D and macro lens makes the perfect system, but this doesn't mean it's the perfect system for every shooter...or even most shooters.
Well, very true again. I would say for any shooter looking for reach, in either macro or (really, most especially) super telephoto the Canon system is by far the better value with by far the greater options. As an overall system it has to be viewed as the same. For the dedicated landscape photographer doing very large prints, none of this matters, and the Nikon D3x and 14-24 mm and 24-70 mm would be the best value for even money.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Okaaay, so I'm just gonna go ahead an PLONK your messages from now on (google it), but I just thought I'd throw up three quick points.
You are once again guilty of your own accusation, making this personal while saying not one single thing relevant to the actual topic.
1) Your wonderfully obvious insecurity as a man just hangs in the air like a thick fog.
No, actually, if we were in the same room as men, you would quickly find how very secure I am of myself and you would likewise quickly find yourself living up to your own self-chosen epithet "boy" by comparison.
2) All psychotic photog posters are the same (He was wrong too; didn't take into account the large buffer) (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=30430754)
3) You = Exhibit #154,124,546,489 of this theroy. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/)
Again, you live up to your own accusations. I have the confidence to sign my real name, and I honestly try to stick to the topic: value in a camera system. You talk trash from behind a fake name, because you are a cowardly bitch by nature, and your infantile personal attacks are what de-rail this thread topic.
Do you have anything of real use to say here (other than admitting I was right, as before), or can you only prove how cowardly you are? In what way do you feel attacking me from the shadows, under a fake name, proves your own self-confidence? In what way do you believe being guilty of your own accusations proves any sort of point here, other than the shape of your head?
If you can show me another system profile of either macrophotography, or super telephotography, that provides better quality than the Canon system for equal-to or less cost, then you would be making a valuable contribution to this thread topic. It has been shown that Nikon can provide marginally better quality than Canon at equal cost in super-wide photography. I believe these kinds of discussion can be valuable to hash-out.
Do you have something valuable to contribute? Because, as it is, you are just a bozo sticking his tongue out, which is pretty lame by any standard.
Jack
-
Hi Vince -
If it helps at all, I consider my D3x to be more than merely "OK" at 24x36 inches - the D3x and iPF6100 are producing some stunners together at that size - not only resolution, but dynamic range and lovely tonality as well. The Alpha may do this too - I'm no Alpha expert (there are some on here, and they can speak to their tool as I can speak only to mine). The Alpha samples I have seen at 24x36 inches were no better than OK, but all that I know of their provenance is that they were at ISO 200 and converted from RAW. They were from Sony, so I assume that Sony's own RAW converter was used, which I know is NOT the choice of the Alpha cogniscenti on here (I think Aperture and Capture One are the preferred choices), and I know neither the printer nor the profile used (the paper seemed to be some RC gloss, but I don't know which one) - hardly fair against the D3x with Capture One converting the 14-bit NEFs, working carefully in Photoshop with the PixelGenius sharpening tools and printing to an iPF6100 working on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta, profiled with Bill Atkinson's 5202 patch target! All I can say is that the D3x with this workflow CAN and DOES produce stunning 24x36 inch prints, not that anything else cannot - ask an Alpha owner with a good Alpha workflow (I'm sure Michael has a superb one) what they think of their camera at 24x36.
If you don't want to go bigger than 24x36, you'll be happy with the D3x, so I wouldn't consider the Phase, especially given the bike.
-Dan
I sometimes want to go larger but I can't justify the medium format back and the bigger printer for the 1% of the time that I'd go larger. Another Value/Quality issue I just made recently is about printing - I've been using Imageprint but I'm fed up with their upgrade policy so rather than pay $870 to them to keep my 9600 running (or replacing my brokend down PC - or trying to mess with Parallels on my mac - I'm opting to put that money into a 7900 and do my own profiles with my i1 pro. Just not sure what profiling software to use - i'll start with the eye-one but I've seen to many recommendations for other packages to think eye-one is the best bet. I might convert the 9600 to Cone Inks and use QTR with it for B&W or I may just sell it.
I wish Nikon had a better selection of lenses in the 70-400 range. I find the 70-200f/2.8G soft in the corners on full frame, the older 80-200 is better but no VR. The 180 prime looks like a good lens - but I suspect it might be getting a dated. The 200 f/2.0 is just too big. A 70-300 f/4 designed for a 5 micron full frame sensor would be nice - or even a new 135 f/2.8, and 200f/4, to go with the 300f/4
Everything is trade-offs I keep wondering when one of manufacturers is going to decide to just do it right (that would be my right ) Maybe Leica is going to ... remains to be seen I suspect they'll be priced too high for most of us. I'd be happier about the Nikon purchase if they'd just done a few things differently.
1. - Live view with the option of keeping the aperture wide open for critical focus rather than automatically stopping down. A 2 second self timer that locks up the mirror - do away with the need for a cable release. The ability to shoot a full bracket set with a single shutter press and with the option of locking up the mirror one time. Built in bluetooth so you can link to a blue-tooth GPS (no cables please). as well as provide a bluetooth wireless remote (a class 3 bt transciever would range upto 100 meters) and you could control aperture,shutter speed, iso and a few other things with the remote.
-
I did know the 14-24 didn't take any form of filters on the front as it's pretty well known fact. Same goes for the Sigma 12-24 and 15-30. I was playing devils advocate after someone pushed a pile of MTF figures in my face as if it was some kind of 'second coming'.
Not quite true. The Sigma 15-30 has a slot for a filter on the other end of the lens where the lens fits to the camera. It accepts specialised rectangular filters a bit smaller than 24x36mm. The Sigma 15-30 also has a holder that slides over the lens hood, much like the Nikkor 14-24. However, the Sigma slide-on cover is threaded and accepts conventional filters. Unfortunately, there's too much vignetting with full frame, so this is only a viable option with the cropped format DSLR.
I was playing devils advocate after someone pushed a pile of MTF figures in my face as if it was some kind of 'second coming'.
Yes, I suppose I do consider the scientific method as equivalent to the second coming. In fact, much better and a cause for greater hope. I consider the prosperity and well-being of the civilised world to be founded upon that same scientific method and scientific attitude that produced those MTF charts.
-
Sweet! Now we've got personal attack and religion in one thread. All we need now is sex and politics.
Does anyone have any idea which camera system is best for taking nude photos of interns?
-
Sweet! Now we've got personal attack and religion in one thread. All we need now is sex and politics.
Does anyone have any idea which camera system is best for taking nude photos of interns?
Well, just to humour your argument, although this is very politically incorrect, it really depends on the 'look' you're going for.
If you want to impress the intern with your machismo, perhaps Canons are best. Whip one of those big white things out and I'm sure the intern will be impressed!
However, if you prefer the stealthy approach, perhaps the flat black of Nikon is the way to go. You can always claim it shoots the same but is less conspicuous!
Or, come out of nowhere, with in-body IS, using a Sony.
Of course, if you're insecure about the size of your pixel, you could always bring a Phase One 65+. We all know size matters.
Or not, and show up with a G10. Sometimes it's not what you shoot, it's how you shoot it.
-
Well, just to humour your argument, although this is very politically incorrect, it really depends on the 'look' you're going for.
If you want to impress the intern with your machismo, perhaps Canons are best. Whip one of those big white things out and I'm sure the intern will be impressed!
However, if you prefer the stealthy approach, perhaps the flat black of Nikon is the way to go. You can always claim it shoots the same but is less conspicuous!
Or, come out of nowhere, with in-body IS, using a Sony.
Of course, if you're insecure about the size of your pixel, you could always bring a Phase One 65+. We all know size matters.
Or not, and show up with a G10. Sometimes it's not what you shoot, it's how you shoot it.
Well, I wasn't making an argument, per se. I was trying to indirectly nudge a few of our combatants back into a more civil tone of discourse with each other. I can't think of any way to respond to your reply without digging myself into a rhetorical hole, so I'll leave it at that.
Perhaps it's difficult to discuss "value" these days without getting into a flame fest.
-
Well MTF is the measure used when designing lenses. It's like mothers milk for optical designers.
That said, there are some issues with MTF:
1) We never see full set of MTF curves
Normally MTF curves are presented across the frame for sagittal and tagential structures at 10/20/40 lp/mm. Canon normally displays 10/30 lp/mm.
Another way to present MTF is lp/mm yielding a certain percentage of MTF.
2) Full set of MTF curves would need to cover higher lp/mm and cover different amount of defocus
3) In order of MTF beeing comparable the conditions must be known. For instance, white light would give other MTF than green light. The spectral composition of the light may also matter.
4) MTF is highly sensitive to sharpening when measured in a digital camera. This is really OK, as sharpening is part of the digital work flow, but it makes comparison difficult. Different sensor/lens combinations need different sharpening, there is no one size fits all setting.
The attitude of some people on this forum to regard any information they don't understand or don't like to be garbage is not very constructive.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, I suppose I do consider the scientific method as equivalent to the second coming. In fact, much better and a cause for greater hope. I consider the prosperity and well-being of the civilised world to be founded upon that same scientific method and scientific attitude that produced those MTF charts.
-
Well MTF is the measure used when designing lenses. It's like mothers milk for optical designers.
I once read an interview with some Leica lens designers, and they said that MTF plots were useful, but not an accurate measure of quality, as given two lenses, the one with an inferior MTF could produce the superior results.
-
The attitude of some people on this forum to regard any information they don't understand or don't like to be garbage is not very constructive.
Erik, the problem is not people disregarding information they don't understand. It's just to the contrary. In fact, people build smattering opinions and cheerfully take buying decisions based on information they don't understand.
[...] MTF plots were useful, but not an accurate measure of quality, as given two lenses, the one with an inferior MTF could produce the superior results.
Exactly. People don't understand them but still are studying them religiously. And by the way, it's just the same with DxOMark rankings.
-- Olaf
-
Besides, a lot of these discussions are triggered by provocative articles clipping some of the facts and are in fact meant to be.
Precisely.
-
Well, as an adventure in self-chastisement, much needed after neglecting numerous pressing household chores that scream silently for my attention, I decided to read the entire thread from start to finish (for me, that´s here).
And what did I learn? Simply, that given the invective, time and passion spent by some on this topic, there can be no way that a normal, non-obsessed person will ever buy the correct equipment. He might be happy in his own ignorance, just as I have been over the years buyng silly Hasselblads and ludicrous Nikons, he might be able to produce great photography with that stuff, but ultimately, someone will pop down from the stratosphere and point out where he has gone wrong, where he has overspent by twenty bucks or cherished the wrong bokeh.
Circular thread? Not quite. Linear, then? Can´t say that either, probaly leans more towards the circular but let´s consider that it might bend even more so in the direction of the loopy?
Holy Batman! Is this what the adults do? Thank God for my second childhood.
Rob C
-
Not quite true. The Sigma 15-30 has a slot for a filter on the other end of the lens where the lens fits to the camera. It accepts specialised rectangular filters a bit smaller than 24x36mm. The Sigma 15-30 also has a holder that slides over the lens hood, much like the Nikkor 14-24. However, the Sigma slide-on cover is threaded and accepts conventional filters. Unfortunately, there's too much vignetting with full frame, so this is only a viable option with the cropped format DSLR.
Yes, I suppose I do consider the scientific method as equivalent to the second coming. In fact, much better and a cause for greater hope. I consider the prosperity and well-being of the civilised world to be founded upon that same scientific method and scientific attitude that produced those MTF charts.
My statement regarding filters for both the Sigma's and the 14-24 is true. You obviously didn't bother to read my post as I was clearly talking about 'Lee filters' specifically for Landscapes - although I'd be very interested in watching you stuff a 150mmx100mm Lee Grad filter into the back of one of those Sigma lenses - in the place where gel filters should be located. LOL
You can attach filters to the lens hood of the Sigma's (82mm thread I believe) - but this is ONLY for APS-C due to vignetting.
I'm very sorry if you don't agree with my statement, but the Nikon equiv of the Canon 16-35 f2.8 was the Nikon 17-35 f2.8 (and not the 14-24). You can't just pick a lens just because it has great MTF figures if it's not able to do the job of the lens it's being compared too. I assume (only assume) that maybe the MTF figures of the 17-35 f2.8 aren't 'as good' otherwise why was the 14-24 picked in preference to the N17-35? It's not for me to reason why, all I know is that my Nikon friends (which I have a many) who do a lot of Landscape work have all purchased the Nikon 17-35 f2.8 over the 14-24 for the very reason for the ability for attaching Grads.
I'm not going to even go into the area MTF figures - that would end in another 20 pages of posts comparing apples with oranges with the occational pear added to the mix for good measure. I would be interested if people know of review sites that post MTF figures for FF (only DPR I'm aware do this, and the lens reviews are limited)
And for the person who stated the D3x is the best value Landscape camera LOL. You are so funny and I'm sure my Nikon friends would love to meet you. What would be the best Landscape camera (better than my a900) would be a D700x with the same resolution, IQ, FPS etc as the D3x, but at the same cost as the current D700. The problem is that it looks like if a D700x is launched it will cost a lot more than the D700 (based on D3 vs D3x prices). If you want a high resolution FF DSLR on a budget, Nikon can't offer this at the moment (just like Sony can't offer a 600mm f4 at the moment). If you want a lower resolution FF DSLR with amazing low light performance, only Nikon can really offer this now. The A900 has better AF and DR than the 5D2 (and weathersealing by the look of it). The 5D2 has better high ISO performance than the a900, and you can get weathersealed lenses. The D3x has the best of both, but for 3x the price.
-
I think the bigger point of Michael's article is to simply point out a consideration that DxO doesn't reflect, or at least not very well (for instance, by ignoring resolution). For Michael, the A900 represents a good value, for someone else under different circumstances it might not.
I feel that his article was very timely for me because I'm going through the buying decision right now (pending the sale of my 4x5 gear to supply some of the funds). I have no digital system and my 35mm gear is old Olympus OM gear that I bought used so I know whatever the choice I go for I'm giving up the use of my existing lenses (well okay, I could use them on a Canon body but only with stopdown metering). Since I bought them used that's not a significant loss of investment and they've given me several years of service.
So having decided to bite the bullet and go for a full-frame DSLR I'm finding myself asking a lot of the questions of value and what I'm looking for. If I'm going for a current body it's down to the A900, 5DmkII or D700, all of which are around the same price. This leaves me with a number of questions that I'm struggling to answer in terms of what "value" means to me:
- How important is 20+mp resolution to me? (If that's a major factor then the D700 is out right there)
- How do the bodies handle? (I've only had the chance to briefly handle the D700 and haven't tried the other 2 yet)
- How important is high ISO to me? (If that's a major factor then the A900 is eliminated)
- How attached am I to using Lightroom as my workflow? Given reports that Aperture or C1 provide better output from the A900 does this rule out that body or am I willing to live with the additional step?
- Will I want to still shoot some film and acquire a film body? (All 3 would allow this in some way, but the features of that body could affect the decision as well)
- What specialty lenses (if any) do I want to use?
- How much of an issue is the non-standard hotshoe on the A900?
Note that none of these talk about the actual quality of the cameras in question. These are all questions regarding what my priorities are and what tradeoffs I'm prepared to make. I have no doubt that all 3 cameras are capable of producing excellent images when one takes the time to learn the strengths and weaknesses of that camera and how to squeeze the best quality from them. This is a question of "what provides the best value to me?"
You know the questions, all you now need to do is to find some answers and you'll be able to pick the right system for you.
As a suggestion, if you want detailed Sony questions answered (hotshoe etc) - probably best to create a seperate thread Personally I find Lightroom fine for a900 files and use Lightroom as my main workflow. I also use the a900 with studio and hotshoe flashes, fired either using Skyports (like PQ) or using the Sony wireless system.
FYI, if you output your photos at Jpegs with the EXIF data, then Exposure Plot (http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html) can be pretty useful for looking at the data within your images.
-
given the invective, time and passion spent by some on this topic, there can be no way that a normal, non-obsessed person will ever buy the correct equipment. He might be happy in his own ignorance, just as I have been over the years buyng silly Hasselblads and ludicrous Nikons, he might be able to produce great photography with that stuff, but ultimately, someone will pop down from the stratosphere and point out where he has gone wrong, where he has overspent by twenty bucks or cherished the wrong bokeh.
Well said!
-
Well, as an adventure in self-chastisement, much needed after neglecting numerous pressing household chores that scream silently for my attention, I decided to read the entire thread from start to finish (for me, that´s here).
And what did I learn? Simply, that given the invective, time and passion spent by some on this topic, there can be no way that a normal, non-obsessed person will ever buy the correct equipment. He might be happy in his own ignorance, just as I have been over the years buyng silly Hasselblads and ludicrous Nikons, he might be able to produce great photography with that stuff, but ultimately, someone will pop down from the stratosphere and point out where he has gone wrong, where he has overspent by twenty bucks or cherished the wrong bokeh.
Circular thread? Not quite. Linear, then? Can´t say that either, probaly leans more towards the circular but let´s consider that it might bend even more so in the direction of the loopy?
Holy Batman! Is this what the adults do? Thank God for my second childhood.
Rob C
Rob C., it's clear by the tone of your posts that you have an extreme amount of self-love and that you have a very high opinion of yourself. Funny though, wasn't it you I saw sobbing on another thread (in the "About This Site" forum) trying to make a case for "civility?" I seem to remember you taking the pulpit, and giving a great emotional speech about how we should all treat other people with respect. Yes, I could swear that was you Rob, lamenting with quivering lip, that we members here should all be more respectful of each other ... and yet here you are running your mouth with sarcasm. Hypocrites are like that ...
Anyway, Rob, as a matter of real-world fact, your sarcasm here not only is hypocritical it is also wrong. The mathematical fact of the matter is, the difference in whole system monetary investment between brand names is quite a bit more than a mere "twenty bucks"; it can actually be several thousand bucks, which not only makes you out to be a bit of an ass for your comments, but it shows your entire premise is also founded upon a lie, making you a dishonest ass. To refresh your memory:
Nikon D300 = $1,500
MicroNikkor 100 mm = $800
Nikkor 600mm = $9,700
TOTAL PRICE = $12,000
By Contrast:
Canon 50D = $1,167
Canon 100 mm macro = $490
Canon 600mm = $7,600
TOTAL PRICE = $9,257
Now then, this is with just 3 pieces of naturalist field equipment, showing the contrast of value offered by these two competitors. In point of fact, the difference is $2,743, not $20. That is close to a 3-grand difference, in just 3 pieces of commonly-purchased top-end field equipment, which means it is 137x more costly than your silly attempt at underming this thread admitted to. In the real world, this is a very large difference.
When one considers the fact that one must get a top-notch tripod, and a topnotch ballhead, just to make a 600 mm lens functional at its full potential, the fact that one can spend $12,000 with Nikon and still face another $1-$2K expense on top of what he's already put out there, should be daunting to all but the wealthy.
The fact that a Canon user still has over $2,700 in spending money that would allow him to purchase an $800 Gitzo tripod, a $600 Wimberly ballhead, a $400 top-shelf backpack, two $150 polarizing filters for both lenses, and a $685 macro ringlight flash for his macro lens ... and still not have spent as much as the Nikon user ... and yet has BY FAR the greater amount of equipment for his money ... ought to make anyone but a dullard stand up and take notice.
Now, as has been pointed out by other members who live in other countries, in some areas these wide ranges of disparity in pricing might not be so great---but they remain in some degree nonetheless. I do believe B&H photo is sponsored by this website, and if anyone wants to check my numbers they will see I am correct and not exaggerating here.
And if I am not mistaking here, the topic of this thread (and of the forum owner's own most recent written work) is "Quality versus Value," and yet a man can't come here and discuss this very topic without a bunch of highfalutin' jackoffs running their mouths. So, please, allow people the right to discuss these topics. This is a very real subject that affects many people, and far too many people don't think of these things before they make their own personal purchase decisions.
It's a serious enough topic that the moderator is writing a multi-piece body of work on the subject, and there are at least 5 different threads here discussing the matter. I am sorry if my numbers show that the system you chose does NOT offer the most value for the money. In certain contexts (perhaps your own context) it does. But in other applications, most notably macro, and especially telephoto, the Nikon system is a terrible buy for the money, and wastes a person thousands of dollars in needless expense. This might not be relevant to your particular photography, but it is most definitely relevant to other people's photography.
So kindly sit your @$$ down and spare us your sarcasm, which is all based on a lie anyway. Show us all that "civility" you cried so much about the other month. If you can't do this, then I will have offer this as my commentary, the next time you get all misty about civility
(http://cipher.addf.net/forums/html/emoticons/jackoff.gif)
The simple fact is, some systems may offer tremendous products, but their value compared to other systems is much less, precisely because of over-pricing. This is a relevant topic to everyone, so I do believe a person who can show how one system offers BY FAR more options, outstanding options, and yet is priced thousands of dollars below their competitors ought to be spared being called a "fanboy" --- when the truth is, he is just being a realistic person with some hard facts and numbers. I don't see why some of you "rational, intelligent" folks are blinded by these numbers. They are real numbers. So perhaps it's a little bit of your own fanboyism that makes you want to bury your heads in the sand as to what these numbers, in fact, pan-out to regarding which brand offers true value.
Jack
.
-
This is very true. The value of a system for you is what is most important. I think that discussions like these (while some idiots like to trivialize them) are actually important for some to clarify what their values in fact are, and choose the system whose strengths (in both purchase price and options) lie with their needs. For instance, if I were a landscape photographer looking to upgrade right now, I would probably go with the Nikon D3x and 14 mm.
Well, very true again. I would say for any shooter looking for reach, in either macro or (really, most especially) super telephoto the Canon system is by far the better value with by far the greater options. As an overall system it has to be viewed as the same. For the dedicated landscape photographer doing very large prints, none of this matters, and the Nikon D3x and 14-24 mm and 24-70 mm would be the best value for even money.
Jack
It seems you're forgetting about the A900 + Zeiss 16-35 and 24-70
-
Hi,
What is so special about the 24-70/2.8? I own it myself and it is a good lens, but I don't know if it is better than any other lens.
Have you actually used the 16-35?
Best regards
Erik
It seems you're forgetting about the A900 + Zeiss 16-35 and 24-70
-
It seems you're forgetting about the A900 + Zeiss 16-35 and 24-70
I am sure there are many particular brand-combinationa that offer great value. My comments were on whole system value. My own particular interests involve macro and (eventually) telephoto, and in getting a complete system. Canon really shines in macro options/price as well as telephoto options/price, as well as overall system value for the money.
If I were strictly a landscape photographer, however, I very well may have gone a different direction.
Comments like yours I think are valuable to this discussion, as what is a good value for me (or you) might not fit another person's particular desires. How does the A900 compare to the 5DMkII plus 16-35 MkII and 24-70? To be honest, I haven't even looked, because this type of photography does not interest me.
Jack
-
With regard to the "audiophile" analogy about price and value in the current articles:
What if I tried to sell you a pair of eyeglasses that have smudges and smears, and clearly not the correct prescription for your eyes? What if I swore these glasses would make your very best prints look even better, and further more, abandoned optical science, saying that "optics" cannot explain these breakthrough results. Along the way, I create a pseudoscience that derives its righteousness from its very rejection by classically trained scientists. And, oh by the way, these miracle specs cost 10-50X more than regular eyeglasses from a mainstream optician.
You'd say I was nuts.
Well, that's what you are getting with most tube gear marketed to "audiophiles". A complex mix of nostalgia, failing hearing, rising disposable income, status seeking and peer pressure has created a market not just for tube gear (which has its legitmate place in audio) but all kinds of "esoteric" gizmos that are marketed as "too advanced to be explained by measurements". As an audiophile-designer and builder, not just consumer-for 30+ years, I can assure you that the subjectivist rabble is not ruling the roost in audiophilia. If you want a bloated, juke-box sound, buy a tube power amplifier. There are very few speakers that will work well with them, in particular all-horn systems.
One tube gear manufacturer said that the performance of its equipment could not be measured by "conventional means" but had more in common with fine wines and expensive cigars. Other sellers have made similar claims about "magic rocks", "cryogenically treated cables", and wooden trestles to elevate speaker cables off the floor.
If I could graph this quackery, the graph would plot declining hearing vs. disposable income. There is point where the two overlap, roughly for ages 35-60, and that is the sweet spot that these snake oil peddlers target. it is known that almost all the adherents of this cult system are men.
I'm much more of an audiophile than a photographer, but I had to raise my hand about a faulty analogy.
-
One tube gear manufacturer said that the performance of its equipment could not be measured by "conventional means" but had more in common with fine wines and expensive cigars. Other sellers have made similar claims about "magic rocks", "cryogenically treated cables", and wooden trestles to elevate speaker cables off the floor.
Ha! That reminds me of Pear and how "danceable" their $7250 speaker cables were. (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/speaker-cables/7250-speaker-cables-turn-you-into-a-dancin-fool-302478.php)
-
Well, that's what you are getting with most tube gear marketed to "audiophiles". A complex mix of nostalgia, failing hearing, rising disposable income, status seeking and peer pressure has created a market not just for tube gear (which has its legitmate place in audio) but all kinds of "esoteric" gizmos that are marketed as "too advanced to be explained by measurements". As an audiophile-designer and builder, not just consumer-for 30+ years, I can assure you that the subjectivist rabble is not ruling the roost in audiophilia. If you want a bloated, juke-box sound, buy a tube power amplifier. There are very few speakers that will work well with them, in particular all-horn systems.
OTOH, there are good points to tubes as well, if the systems are properly designed. the advantages is that they handle heat, distortion, and clipping far better than modern electronics. But that's only if you're pushing the thing too hard. Otherwise, the sound is virtually identical. Of course, that gets into the whole problem of 95% of people having woefully inadequate systems that DO distort, clip, and get too hot. Good transistor amps aren't terribly cheap, either.
But yeah, I see that snake oil all the time. Just look at them and then more reasonable makers like Outlaw Audio, Jolida, Norh, Bryston, and so on. Or check out amplifier kits. Same thing as the 10,000+ systems for a few hundred dollars. Heh. It also extends into photography as well. To be honest, I like the Fuji S5 Pro a lot more than most of these new toys due to the dynamic range and cleaner images it produces. It looks a bit closer to film, despite having less resolution or toys/modes to play with.
Now that would be my personal choice. Nikon lenses and $2135 for the camera fresh from hotrod visible. http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm (http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm)
Of course, I'm not printing wall sized photos, either... heh.
-
Have you actually used the 16-35?.
There was a test between the 16-35 f/2.8 Zeiss and the earlier 17-35 G lens on the A900 (the person who did the test, posted the below link on Dyxum), as below:
http://www.photohobby.net/webboard/detail.php?topicid=10867 (http://www.photohobby.net/webboard/detail.php?topicid=10867)
Obviously, beside the Zeiss, the "G" lens appears a bit out-classed, especially when one goes to the corners and edges.
One has to be aware that this was done on a 24.6MP FF sensor. On a lower pixel density sensor (even a full-frame), the lens would not have been challenged as much.....and the "G" would have looked a lot better than the appearance in these test images.
-
Zeiss isn't Sony, however, and they are more expensive lenses.
The "ZA" range are Zeiss lenses, exclusively made for the Sony mount. The difference here is that these Zeiss lenses, have full Auto-focus (SSM or ring-USM in Canon-speak) and native mount compatibility on Sony, since these are designed expressly by Zeiss, under Sony's directive, for Sony.
Thus the upcoming Carl Zeiss 200mm f/3.5 ZA SSM Makro, is a highly anticipated optic.
-
Canon really shines in macro options/price
Nikon shines more brightly:
85mm F2.8 PC micro: superb with no direct Canon equivalent.
45mm F2.8 PCE micro: superb with no direct Canon equivalent.
60mm F2.8 AFS micro: superb, beats the Canon.
105mm F2.8 VR AFS : no Canon equivalent.
200mm F4 AFS micro: superb. I have seen numerous reviews of the Canon lens which indicate that it is not as good.
Now the one big advantage of many Nikon micro lenses is that you can set the true aperture on the lens. The older 105mm lenses have aperture rings, are available used, and are excellent. I don't think you can do that with Canon. And it is easy to reverse a Nikon wide angle lens to get > 1:1. You can't do that with Canon, without buying an expensive contraption.
Nikon flash is superb and easy to use. The R1 macro flash works really well. You can use the built in flash as a commander to control off camera flashes wirelessly. I don't think Canon can do that. If you want to set up a flash system to capture a fox, and not have wires all over the place, it's easier with Nikon.
Canon equipment is by all accounts top class and it will take you a long while to discover the strengths and weaknesses of a system. I am sure Canon have strengths I know nothing about. The truth is that whichever system you use, you will find weak points, and what will make your photos will be your skill in using what you have got. You will find that it takes quite a while to discover new techniques and workarounds for issues.
May I suggest you wait until you have more experience with a system before you engage in brand wars? I have used Nikon for decades, but do not feel able to engage in a brand war, as I have never used Canon EOS.
Now when it comes to Sony, it is a new system, and it is not yet as strong as Canon and Nikon. It looks like it will be one of the big names on a par with Canon and Nikon, in a year or two. For many it is already on a par, if not ahead. For others it is not yet there.
-
I am sure there are many particular brand-combinationa that offer great value. My comments were on whole system value. My own particular interests involve macro and (eventually) telephoto, and in getting a complete system. Canon really shines in macro options/price as well as telephoto options/price, as well as overall system value for the money.
If I were strictly a landscape photographer, however, I very well may have gone a different direction.
Comments like yours I think are valuable to this discussion, as what is a good value for me (or you) might not fit another person's particular desires. How does the A900 compare to the 5DMkII plus 16-35 MkII and 24-70? To be honest, I haven't even looked, because this type of photography does not interest me.
Jack
Whoops, sorry if I was unclear. I wasn't responding to your macro needs. I was responding to your statement, "For the dedicated landscape photographer doing very large prints, none of this matters, and the Nikon D3x and 14-24 mm and 24-70 mm would be the best value for even money." The A900 with the two ZA zooms I mentioned costs around $5000 less than that Nikon setup, and I believe that is a major point of MR's article, seeing as how he is a landscape shooter. Now, there is definitely room for discussion about which will provide the best IQ (it could go either way,) but it's splitting hairs. Preliminarily, it seems the 14-24 Nikon is a bit better than the ZA 16-35, and the ZA 24-70 is a bit better than the Nikon. Nikon does have t/s, but Sony has a Zeiss WA prime coming and expensive 3rd party t/s, so...splitting hairs.
Personally, I'm a studio portrait shooter, and I wouldn't trade the A900 and ZA lenses for any other 35mm system, regardless of price, and that mostly has to do with preferring the way Zeiss draws a scene, and still wanting autofocus. Also, the A900 has the best vertical grip ever made with every control doubled, and the best viewfinder. Different shooters, different needs
As far as the A900 vs. 5Dii with 16-35 and 24-70, that depends on the shooter. I never shoot beyond ISO 1600 (rarely even ISO 800,) so the A900 is the no-brainer, as it's better at low ISO and has the Zeiss'. For one that spends most of his/her time over ISO 1600, then I'd say 5dii (I should say that both of those Canon zoom lenses are known to be just a little soft.)
As far as Macro, Sony doesn't have that sweet 1X5 macro, but there is a great Minolta 1x3, so advantage Canon. As far as regular macro lenses, the Sony 50 and 100 are as good as any Canon.
Telephoto with Sony will be interesting. Their new 70-400 looks to be the best of it's kind, but we'll see. Sony has been previewing long, expensive tele primes, but we don't know when they are coming, so I'd agree Canon seems the way to go. Outside of 300 2.8, one has to go with used Minolta primes, which are great, but hard to find.
Sorry for such a lengthy, yet generic rundown of my opinions. These forums become so Canon/Nikon-centric that I feel like I need to interject a little Sony love in here sometimes If anything, it's good for people to see what Sony has, because many don't realize that, whilst still not coming close in numbers to Canon, Sony has some 26 or so lenses, with more coming, and that's not to mention many of the great legacy Minolta autofocus lenses.
-
Hi,
What is so special about the 24-70/2.8? I own it myself and it is a good lens, but I don't know if it is better than any other lens.
Have you actually used the 16-35?
Best regards
Erik
I wasn't meaning to imply that the ZA's were much better or worse than the Nikkors. I was simply saying comparable at a lower system cost, due to the D3x body price, because value was mentioned. I will say that the ZA 24-70 at around f4 or so and at the ~30-55mm focal length is very good and prime worthy. 70mm seems to be the lens at it's worst, albeit still very good for a zoom.
-
The simple fact is, some systems may offer tremendous products, but their value compared to other systems is much less, precisely because of over-pricing.
John, have you considered the fact that the build quality, viewfinder, and reliability of the Canon prosumer bodies vs. a D300 are not in the same class.
Michael just reported in another thread that his 5D Mk II died on the second day in the Antarctic trip. Read here: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....31747&st=20 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31747&st=20)
Here:
http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RuaW (http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RuaW)
someone reports having left his 5D in the car overnight in sub-freezing temperatures - doesn't work the next morning. What's up with that?!
Where I live, the mean temperature outdoors is below freezing for five months every year! Do you think I would get a Canon prosumer camera after these reports? I have never, ever had a Nikon DSLR fail due to cold weather. I have had film SLRs run out of batteries in the cold but they worked fine after replacement with new ones. Total camera failure? Unbelievable. I sometimes need to shoot close to -30 C.
In this report,
http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00NxQL (http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00NxQL)
a mirror falls of the 5D in normal use. I have read several such reports of this particular camera model, never others.
Viewfinder quality: I can't see more than 75% of the viewfinder image in the case of the 5D without taking off my glasses. I think the Canon 50D/5D Mk II viewfinders aren't comparable with the Sony or Nikon prosumer viewfinders. To me, shooting 25% blind isn't an option.
These factors seriously affect my perception of the value of e.g. the Canon 5D (Mk II).
I would appreciate if people would take home one message: value is completely dependent on the intended uses and preferences of the user. Categorical statements like "Canon offers more value, period" should not be made since they don't have general validity. If I can't see through the viewfinder properly, or if the camera can only be used in the summer and mirrors fall off it, it just isn't the camera for me no matter how much less expensive their supertelephotos are.
Before anyone notes, I am perfectly aware that people successfully use Canon 1 series camera bodies throughout the winter in extreme conditions. That's not my point - then, for full-frame we get back to the 6-8k price category so much criticized for the value aspect.
-
Now when it comes to Sony, it is a new system, and it is not yet as strong as Canon and Nikon. It looks like it will be one of the big names on a par with Canon and Nikon, in a year or two. For many it is already on a par, if not ahead. For others it is not yet there.
No, Sony/Minolta is a very OLD system. The problem was that without a full-frame sensor to negate the conversion factor, nobody was buying into it. Now that they have a full frame body to go with the last decade or two of Minolta lenses, it is suddenly a proper player again. I like to think of it as Sony took over and blew it and the market went into a few year long coma. But it's awake again and continuing where it left off.
Was Minolta viable 4-5 years ago? Sure, though it wasn't really entering the pro DSLR market yet. Now it's taking off again from where it left off, with a proper DSLR. Will it be enough to save it, considering that it's late to the game? I don't know. But a lot of people seem to think so. (I see the previous Sony DSLRs as half-baked mistakes. Kind of like Beta versions)
-
Hi,
Thanks for comment! Your evaluation of the ZA is 24-70/2.8 is essentially like mine. With the addition that it is better at real life shots than tests.
Best regards
Erik
I wasn't meaning to imply that the ZA's were much better or worse than the Nikkors. I was simply saying comparable at a lower system cost, due to the D3x body price, because value was mentioned. I will say that the ZA 24-70 at around f4 or so and at the ~30-55mm focal length is very good and prime worthy. 70mm seems to be the lens at it's worst, albeit still very good for a zoom.
-
Yeah, although the Zeiss lenses test well usually, there is something to be said about their rendering and microcontrast, which I've yet to see from other makes.
Plekto, great post, although I'd argue that the A700 was the first great camera Sony produced, and, although the A100 was a warmed over Minolta, I could also argue that it has wonderful IQ at low ISO...possibly better than the current CMOS offerings from all the makes, but it's hard to quantify it.
-
True, but without proper lens support/Sony sticking to the old Maxxum type lens geometry, it was hampered greatly. Canon, for instance, has tons of converted ratio lenses out now for the new bodies. But still selling the same 28mm 2.8 on a 1.5x conversion factor a700... yeah, that was a deal killer for a lot of people. Either they didn't want to buy in or they had old lenses which worked less than optimally and were forced to wait for a full-frame Sony to come out.
Of course, the problem is that a LOT of these people finally gave up and moved from film a year or two ago. Sony/Minolta got its game back on again, but it's way late in the game. Of course, for a new buyer, that means tons of perfectly good used Maxxum lenses are floating around...
EDIT: One thing Sony needs to do, IMO, is to take the same full frame body and put cheaper sensors in it. that way they can have a couple of entry-level $1000-$1500 12 or 16MP full frame cameras and start a proper series. Because not everyone really needs 24.6MP.
-
Of course, the problem is that a LOT of these people finally gave up and moved from film a year or two ago. Sony/Minolta got its game back on again, but it's way late in the game. Of course, for a new buyer, that means tons of perfectly good used Maxxum lenses are floating around...
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Sony has been doing quite well in the market since introduction, and as somebody who buys and sells lenses to supplement my income, I can tell you that prices on the old, good Maxxum glass are going up, up, up. Old 85mm f/1.4 and ALL the f/2 lenses have gone insane. Even the old manual focus Rokkor stuff has gone through the roof thanks to chipping and adapters. I suppose the IDC numbers will settle this in a little bit.
-
Very interesting essay and my two cents (or rather two points) are
1) Being an early adopter is indeed expensive. Also the incremental 'quality' you get by always upgrading to the latest and greatest is probably the smallest step if you do it every time. So I agree with the 2nd hand point of yoni and for me even my current body is the cheapest second hand I don't have to buy I'll probably just upgrade every 3rd or 4th generation to make a big leap. But for me it's pure hobby and I can imagine that pro's can't afford to do that.
2) I invest some of the money I save by the above strategy in better lenses. Something I read elsewhere: DSLR's are for a year (or 2), lenses are forever. I believe in the end a better lens will make more impact on the picture IQ than the body (and proper technique of course).
Actually I agree with Pegelli and would go a step further to say that some pros can afford to skip generations. Fashion and commercial photographers possibly not, but baby and even wedding photography can get away with it. The key is not necessarily whether the photographer can tell the difference in quality but whether the client can. If they can't then they're better served by lower prices that don't have to cover the latest equipment. Also in wedding photography, you have the choice of upgrading all your bodies at once, or buying one new one and using the old ones as backup or second body for the wide angle, less demanding shots.
Lenses are generally a better investment in that they don't depreciate much although we're definitely seeing great computer designed lenses from the other brands that give Canon, Nikon and Sony a run for their money.
-
So you are saying that a Canon 5dMk11 or a Nikon D700 ISN'T a 'designer shirt' if people buy it to show off with? Lets face it, hardly any of the mid to high end DSLR cameras sold ever do a full job of work, unless it is to display the status of the owner. So this nonsense about Leica being for toffs is part true and part untrue, but your broad brush should also include the weekend warrior who wants to impress his mates, or people on camera forums with the latest DSLR.
Leicas are certainly bought by those who are more concerned with prestige than actual quality or value. My local camera shop has always sold a lot of leicas and currently they sell a lot more of the rebadged panasonics with a red dot added, than the much cheaper and identical panasonic camera, even if this is pointed out to the customer. And it's not as if the panasonic is much better than other cameras either to warrant a leica badge.. I tried one awhile back and very quickly decided it was quite awful.
There's no real status to having a Canon or a Nikon - they are common as muck and why do you have to be paid to take photographs to make it a non-designer purchase. And both the canikons you mention have a couple of models above them in the price range - so not the best for snob value really.
-
Yet sitting in a fox hole in Vietnam I'm sure many photographers felt the value of their Leica M3 was reliability and compactness, rather than as a pretentious status symbol. And I'm sure the soldiers around him didn't give a cuss about whether it was a Pentax or a Leica either. I doubt Cartier Bresson felt he was using a status symbol, but thought it was the best and most valuable tool to do his job. I could go on with examples.Consigning an M3 as a pretentious status symbol is a severe case of knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing ;-)
Bollox. That was then, this is now - I'm talking about the current pretentiousness around the Leica brand, not say the M3 or historically important cameras. And I still have no interest in buying any Leica - which was my actual point, as they are not worth the money to me. I simply won't pay for names. Leica used to be the best, but hey times change.
How many other companies sell tacky and very expensive limited edition variant as a matter of course to try and raise interest in ever less relevant kit. I vaguely seem to recall there is an camouflage version of whatever model there is around now for mucho extra moolah. The kit is sold locally as collectors items, not as cameras.
I found the current 'must have, which is actually khaki. Camouflage was an older variant.
Collectors only? (http://www.thedigitalnewsroom.com/en/News/2055/Leica_M8_Safari_When_the_digital_rangefinder_puts_on_its_combat_pants.htm)
-
Hi,
Pixels are free, silicon costs. Sony could make a 12 or 16 MPixel camera but that would not convert into lower manufacturing costs. They could of course cut other corners, lesser quality in mechanical construction and so on, perhaps produce outside Japan.
Best regards
Erik
True, but without proper lens support/Sony sticking to the old Maxxum type lens geometry, it was hampered greatly. Canon, for instance, has tons of converted ratio lenses out now for the new bodies. But still selling the same 28mm 2.8 on a 1.5x conversion factor a700... yeah, that was a deal killer for a lot of people. Either they didn't want to buy in or they had old lenses which worked less than optimally and were forced to wait for a full-frame Sony to come out.
Of course, the problem is that a LOT of these people finally gave up and moved from film a year or two ago. Sony/Minolta got its game back on again, but it's way late in the game. Of course, for a new buyer, that means tons of perfectly good used Maxxum lenses are floating around...
EDIT: One thing Sony needs to do, IMO, is to take the same full frame body and put cheaper sensors in it. that way they can have a couple of entry-level $1000-$1500 12 or 16MP full frame cameras and start a proper series. Because not everyone really needs 24.6MP.
-
Correct! I use my M3 almost every day.
And I prefer to use a better camera. Things have moved on since then.
-
If we're already to the point where we should be basing our whole system around expected print size (I know I am), then our equipment considerations need to take that into account.
Uh, I buy a camera on it's ability to capture pictures in the real world, not how many pixels it has, if it has more that's a bonus. I chose a 5D over a 1DsII as it was a more practical camera [for me], I also bought a EOS3 over the more expensive and supposedly more professional EOS1 as it was a better camera, by virtue of eye controlled focusing - which is far better than anything else I've used and really miss it with my newer kit.
I would rather buy a better handling camera, with features that help me get the shot, that a clumsier camera which has slighty more quality.
-
We all have different needs and interests. Why some people feel it necessary to be combatative over this is something that I never fail to find amazing.
Exactly - Value is in fact completly subjective, due to our differing needs/interests. But many people think it is absolute.
I read a magazine review on a product which slated a particular feature as being completely and utterly pointless. That feature was why I bought the product, as it did something no other comparable device did. And I wanted this feature.
-
Nikon D3x: 8000
Nikon 24-70: 1700
Nikon 14-24: 1580
Total: 11280
Canon 1DsIII: 6550
Canon 24-70: 1265
Canon 14mm II: 2020
Canon 16-35 II: 1450
Total: 11285
With equivalent focal length coverage from 14mm to 70mm on FF, 20MP+ cameras, the two system costs even out. Actually, the Nikon is ahead as there's one less lens to carry, it has more resolution and it's $5 cheaper. And, as many have observed, at this time it produces the best images from a DSLR camera at any price point. Not to mention that 14-24, which many Canon shooters use on their 1DsIII's.
Here, the value is with the Nikon system, despite the oft derided $8000 price tag of the D3x. Price, while a convenient number we can factor into the value of a system, is not the penultimate decider you make it out to be. It is, as all the other attributes, a subjective and personal factor but one that cannot be blindly added up.
Very true. But here's a factor you haven't considered which changes the sums yet again. For me the 14-24 + 24-70mm combination would be very annoying as the 16-35mm is a range I use a lot and having to swap back and fore between the 14-24 + the 24-70 would drive me nuts. So the Canon system is better value as it is more usable for me. Plus I don't need a 14mm, so it would work out cheaper as well as more practical.
-
Very true. But here's a factor you haven't considered which changes the sums yet again. For me the 14-24 + 24-70mm combination would be very annoying as the 16-35mm is a range I use a lot and having to swap back and fore between the 14-24 + the 24-70 would drive me nuts. So the Canon system is better value as it is more usable for me. Plus I don't need a 14mm, so it would work out cheaper as well as more practical.
I know that statement is flawed. But, I was just trying to show Jack that Canon is not always the best value. A point which he seems to have ignored since. :-)
I tend to shoot two bodies so having overlapping lenses annoys me somewhat. I currently shoot either 17-40 and 24-70 or 24-70 and 70-200, and I often find myself framing with the 17-40 only to realize I should be using the 24-70 as I've moved into its FL and I know it's the sharper lens of the two.
In the end, it's all subjective!
-
No, Sony/Minolta is a very OLD system. The problem was that without a full-frame sensor to negate the conversion factor, nobody was buying into it. Now that they have a full frame body to go with the last decade or two of Minolta lenses, it is suddenly a proper player again. I like to think of it as Sony took over and blew it and the market went into a few year long coma. But it's awake again and continuing where it left off.
Was Minolta viable 4-5 years ago? Sure, though it wasn't really entering the pro DSLR market yet. Now it's taking off again from where it left off, with a proper DSLR. Will it be enough to save it, considering that it's late to the game? I don't know. But a lot of people seem to think so. (I see the previous Sony DSLRs as half-baked mistakes. Kind of like Beta versions)
The current Sony system is a new one, though as you say, it uses the Minolta mount, and is compatible with the older lenses. Still, the *current* system is new, and is at present somewhat limited compared to Canon and Nikon. That is my opinion based on my needs, but of course if you want to ignore the fact that others might have different needs to you, fine.
BTW yes I am sure Sony will do very well. Once they have a true system, then most people will feel confident in buying them. The presence of VR/IS in the camera is a selling point. And Sony have plenty of distribution and marketing channels which I am sure helps a lot.
-
A comment / question about System Value: I'm a Canon shooter, so it's the only system I know. In the last few years, Canon has slowly released updated versions of its lenses. This was done in an effort to enhance the performance with sensors, rather than film. So in that sense, there's unspoken value in a newly assembled Canon kit.
To what degree are other manufacturers releasing digital-optimized lenses? Are all the new Sony lenses already "optimized" for digital? I'm sure their marketing people would say "yes". What about Nikon lenses? Are those still the same lens designs form the film days? I expect the Leica S2 (and the subsequent R10) will be designed from the ground up with sensors and their inherent design issues in mind...
-
Very true. But here's a factor you haven't considered which changes the sums yet again. For me the 14-24 + 24-70mm combination would be very annoying as the 16-35mm is a range I use a lot and having to swap back and fore between the 14-24 + the 24-70 would drive me nuts. So the Canon system is better value as it is more usable for me. Plus I don't need a 14mm, so it would work out cheaper as well as more practical.
If you don't need 14mm, then that's reason enough for not being interested. The comparison is obviously based on a 'need, desire, or requirement' for 14mm. There are situations where one simply can't physically get back far enough to take in the desired composition.
There's also something to be said for not wasting focal lengths with unnecessary overlaps. The 16-35 + 24-70 combination is duplicating focal lengths. The 14-24 + 24-70 is a preferrable combination in my view.
-
What about Nikon lenses? Are those still the same lens designs form the film days? I expect the Leica S2 (and the subsequent R10) will be designed from the ground up with sensors and their inherent design issues in mind...
I'll answer for the Nikon part, the following lenses have been updated in the past year or so, focussing on FF lenses only:
- 14-24 f2.8
- 24-70 f2.8
- 24, 45 and 85 PC-E T/S lenses
- 50 f1.4
- 60 f2.8 and 105 VR f2.8 macro lenses
- 70-300 VR f4.5-5.6
- 200 VR f2.0
- 300 VR f2.8
- 400 VR f2.8
- 500 VR f4
- 600 VR f4
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'll answer for the Nikon part, the following lenses have been updated in the past year or so, focussing on FF lenses only:
- 14-24 f2.8
- 24-70 f2.8
- 24, 45 and 85 PC-E T/S lenses
- 50 f1.4
- 60 f2.8 and 105 VR f2.8 macro lenses
- 70-300 VR f4.5-5.6
- 200 VR f2.0
- 300 VR f2.8
- 400 VR f2.8
- 500 VR f4
- 600 VR f4
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
This might sound like a silly question, but humour me please. Is there any problem with the D3x auto focusing on infinity? I have a strange feeling I could be going the Nikon route soon.
Kevin.
-
Bernard,
This might sound like a silly question, but humour me please. Is there any problem with the D3x auto focusing on infinity? I have a strange feeling I could be going the Nikon route soon.
Yes, the D3x cannot focus farther than 5 meters, Nikon will release a D3Xs next year that will cost another 4000 US$ and will optionally be able to focus to infinity through a setting... I find it to be an asset since Cartier Bresson always said that you've got to get closer to your subjects.
Having just read your other thread I can now see that this was a real question. Unfortunately, I can only answer that I don' know. I have no noticed any obviously oof images with the D3/D3x that were not user errors, but I very often focus manually using life view and might not have seen a problem with infinity focus even if there were one.
It is true that all the AF-S/USM lenses are a pain since it is all too easy to change the focus by mistake when touching the lens. They should all have a "no focus" mode.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A comment / question about System Value: I'm a Canon shooter, so it's the only system I know. In the last few years, Canon has slowly released updated versions of its lenses. This was done in an effort to enhance the performance with sensors, rather than film. So in that sense, there's unspoken value in a newly assembled Canon kit.
To what degree are other manufacturers releasing digital-optimized lenses? Are all the new Sony lenses already "optimized" for digital? I'm sure their marketing people would say "yes". What about Nikon lenses? Are those still the same lens designs form the film days? I expect the Leica S2 (and the subsequent R10) will be designed from the ground up with sensors and their inherent design issues in mind...
All new lenses from Sony regardless of whether they are standard lenses, G or CZ are 'optimized' for digital - as are now 'new designs' (all the Minolta lenses that got carried over were released at the time of the takeover, which was a number of years ago). Sony has never produced a film camera hence 'digital' is all they know. Even the lenses like the Sony 50mm f1.4 which were based on the Minolta lens - was given 'digital makeover' (see DPR who compare thr Sony lens to the older Minolta). All 'new' Sony FF lenses will be designed around the 25MP a900, since this is the only FF camera Sony has made.
Film was a long time ago and I would expect it's not whether they are 'digitally optimized', it's whether they are 'high resolution optimized'. Whether they are 'high resolution optimized' will depend on a number of factors, the generation of camera was around at the time of release, what was in the pipeline for release, and the target cost of the lens. I'm sure are lots more factors, but that's just a few. And the more lenses in the range, the more that need updating.
I'm sure there are lenses from Canon, Nikon & Sony that need a 'makeover' for the higher resolution cams. In fact I know there are, just talk to a 5D2/1ds3, a900 or D3x owner with a reasonable amount of kit and they'll quickly tell you what lenses work well, and what they would like updated.
-
Yes, the D3x cannot focus farther than 5 meters, Nikon will release a D3Xs next year that will cost another 4000 US$ and will optionally be able to focus to infinity through a setting... I find it to be an asset since Cartier Bresson always said that you've got to get closer to your subjects.
Cheers,
Bernard
I think you were thinking about Robert Capa, not Cartier Bresson ;-)
By the way, are you French ? I am and I love Japan but (still) living in Paris...
Cheers
Pascal
www.pascalbarreiro.com
-
I think you were thinking about Robert Capa, not Cartier Bresson ;-)
Oops... that could very well be.
By the way, are you French ? I am and I love Japan but (still) living in Paris...
Only 12.5%, the rest is mostly Belgian. I pass by Paris from time to time for work though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I know that statement is flawed. But, I was just trying to show Jack that Canon is not always the best value. A point which he seems to have ignored since. :-)
I tend to shoot two bodies so having overlapping lenses annoys me somewhat. I currently shoot either 17-40 and 24-70 or 24-70 and 70-200, and I often find myself framing with the 17-40 only to realize I should be using the 24-70 as I've moved into its FL and I know it's the sharper lens of the two.
In the end, it's all subjective!
And that's the point many miss.
If using two bodies [which changes the sums again] then a 14-24 and a 24-70 is a very good mix, particularly if the 14-24 is better than the 17-35 in quality. But now you need to factor in the cost of a second body to make those sums work!
-
There's also something to be said for not wasting focal lengths with unnecessary overlaps. The 16-35 + 24-70 combination is duplicating focal lengths. The 14-24 + 24-70 is a preferrable combination in my view.
But if you shoot mostly 20-30mm, then the overlap is not important, the hassle of changing lens is.
I'd love a 20-70mm lens - at f2 of course.
-
But if you shoot mostly 20-30mm, then the overlap is not important, the hassle of changing lens is.
I'd love a 20-70mm lens - at f2 of course.
Oooh, now you've got me excited!
Of course, most would condemn such a useful bit of kit as: a) weighing too much b ) costing too much c) being too big and bulky d) not being that much better than a f2.8.
Did I miss anything? :-)
-
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Sony has been doing quite well in the market since introduction, and as somebody who buys and sells lenses to supplement my income, I can tell you that prices on the old, good Maxxum glass are going up, up, up. Old 85mm f/1.4 and ALL the f/2 lenses have gone insane. Even the old manual focus Rokkor stuff has gone through the roof thanks to chipping and adapters. I suppose the IDC numbers will settle this in a little bit.
This is because with the A900, all of these lenses are useful again. Who would have guessed?
Pixels are free, silicon costs. Sony could make a 12 or 16 MPixel camera but that would not convert into lower manufacturing costs. They could of course cut other corners, lesser quality in mechanical construction and so on, perhaps produce outside Japan.
Best regards
Erik
By the same logic, Sony could also price the A900 at $1500. It's simple marketing, really, and some guy in marketing decides what he thinks the market will pay for the thing. The bosses sign off on it and Sony makes loads of money. They certainly could offer a lower-end full frame version. I don't know - call it the A90. Few less features and a 12MP sensor... Actually, a naming system like this would probably be useful.
The current Sony system is a new one, though as you say, it uses the Minolta mount, and is compatible with the older lenses. Still, the *current* system is new, and is at present somewhat limited compared to Canon and Nikon. That is my opinion based on my needs, but of course if you want to ignore the fact that others might have different needs to you, fine.
BTW yes I am sure Sony will do very well. Once they have a true system, then most people will feel confident in buying them. The presence of VR/IS in the camera is a selling point. And Sony have plenty of distribution and marketing channels which I am sure helps a lot.
What a load of rubbish. At least 75% of the lenses are literally the EXACT same lenses as on the Maxxum series. Just with a Sony badge and in a new cardboard box. Maybe a slightly different set of coatings and internal oils or something to keep the eco-geeks happy. They have a "system" - it's already there. Just Sony isn't calling it the "Maxxum A900 Digital". I'm not ignoring anything here. Check the various sites I linked to with lens data. As such, that means that the older Maxxum lenses *are* the lenses that you use with it if you want the rest of the system/options. At least until Sony decides to make brand new lenses, that is. But I suspect that the 400 and 600mm zooms aren't going to be brought back very quickly...
To what degree are other manufacturers releasing digital-optimized lenses? Are all the new Sony lenses already "optimized" for digital?
No, and that was the problem. If you have a full frame sensor and a proper body design, you don't need to do anything at all to that film lens. But for several years, Sony didn't upgrade their lenses. As a result, it caused problems that created a bad taste in many professionals' mouths. OTOH, now that the A900 is out, they don't have to change anything... Good in a way, but it completely punks the older Sony DSLR owners (hello, A700?) who are now effectively left behind and without any option. Sony's basically saying "buy full-frame or nothing at all". Which is why I said they need to come out with less expensive full frame models as well, because not everyone can handle $2500 for a camera or needs 25MP. Or else Sony will only have two types of users - brand new ones who don't largely know that the Maxxum lenses are essentially identical and older 35mm film users who were waiting to make the switch(what - 5% of the stragglers?)
Real pros said "screw this" a couple of years ago and moved to the Canon 5D, most likely, since it was full frame, cheap, and worked. It's going to take a lot of work to get them back, I fear.
-
Hi,
Pixels are free, silicon costs. Sony could make a 12 or 16 MPixel camera but that would not convert into lower manufacturing costs. They could of course cut other corners, lesser quality in mechanical construction and so on, perhaps produce outside Japan.
Not exactly. The above is a conventional flawed view-point. Let me explain.
Yes, comparing the actual production cost of a 12MP FF sensor and a 24MP FF sensor, might get you to a relatively close number, since both are similarly sized Full-frame sensors. However, that is where the comparison/similarity ends.
Whether it be a 12MP FF sensor or a 12MP APS-C sensor, once you take the cost of the Silicon out of the equation, the underlying electronics and data pipeline architecture that will enable the crunching of all the data that comes out of the sensor, processing it, and then transporting it through the data pipeline onto the buffer or Flash-storage, is the SAME - *as long as* the FPS (frames per second) on both cameras are the same, since, the megapixels are the same (12MP vs 12MP).
Completely different dimension when you now introduce a 24MP monster into the mix with something like 5FPS. Now the kind of electronics and architecture required to extract those MASSIVE data volumes that come out of the sensor, process all of that in fractions of a second, and transport it via a data-pipeline architecture that is robust enough to support such MASSIVE data volumes, and finally onto the buffer or Flash-memory, is a whole different dimension, from doing the same task with a 12MP product.
I was frankly totally surprised that the A900 had 5FPS, with a 24.6MP monster resolution sensor and the whole package being sold for $3K USD. Even the 1DSMKIII, with its 21MP sensor and 5FPS, is moving FAR less amounts of data than the A900, since a full-RAW file (14-bit) in the Canon 1DSMKIII is around 24MB in size, while the A900 has a nearly 40MB RAW file. So when shooting RAW+JPEG at 5FPS, the A900 is processing/crunching/moving around 250+ MegaBytes (MB) of data PER SECOND and the kind of sophisticated and specialized architecture needed to pull it off, is where the LARGE cost factor comes in.
Remember that a Film camera (say a 1D version) and a Digital 1DSMKIII has a cost difference of around $6000. That $6000 difference, is over and above the cost of the outer shell and the "cheap bits" like the shutter, the mirror box and the other stuff and is almost ENTIRELY due to the electronics, including the cost of the sensor.
So yes, Silicon is expensive and pixels could be even more expensive......especially when one needs a decent enough FPS.
Bottomline, if Sony comes out with an A800 with a 12MP FF sensor, operating at 5FPS, they could borrow some of the "cheap bits" like the shutter and mirror box etc from the A900, and borrow the downstream electronics (CPU, Data pipeline electronics etc) from the A700 (same 12MP, right ?), and come out with a MUCH cheaper product that the Full-frame A900, without "cutting any corners".....remember the electronics in the A900 are several classes above the A700, since both are at 5FPS, but in case of the A900, it is a 24MP monster churning out TWICE as much data in the SAME time slice.....even moving to a 6FPS in the A900 would be an impossibility with currently available cutting edge processor and electronics technology, IMO, else the D3X would have done it at its $8000 pricepoint.
-
Deleted
-
Hi,
I'm well aware of this consideration. As a matter of fact the A900 has to Bionz chips for handling the amount of data, on the other hand I'd guess that the Bionz chip is quite cheap in production, because production costs go up rapidly with die size, my guess is that cost is like proportional to chip dimension along one axis to the power of four. If we assume that an APS-C sensor would cost around 200 USD than accoding to my guess the FF sensor would cost around 1000 USD, if we no assume that the Bionz would cost about 20 USD each the additional cost would be 820 USD for the A900 and about 800 USD for the theoretical A800 (or what we call it).
Of course this is only speculation as none of the prices are known.
Would be nice if some from the electrical engineering department of Luminous Landscape would chime in, Bernard do you listen?!
Best regards
Erik
Not exactly. The above is a conventional flawed view-point. Let me explain.
Yes, comparing the actual production cost of a 12MP FF sensor and a 24MP FF sensor, might get you to a relatively close number, since both are similarly sized Full-frame sensors. However, that is where the comparison/similarity ends.
Whether it be a 12MP FF sensor or a 12MP APS-C sensor, once you take the cost of the Silicon out of the equation, the underlying electronics and data pipeline architecture that will enable the crunching of all the data that comes out of the sensor, processing it, and then transporting it through the data pipeline onto the buffer or Flash-storage, is the SAME - *as long as* the FPS (frames per second) on both cameras are the same, since, the megapixels are the same (12MP vs 12MP).
Completely different dimension when you now introduce a 24MP monster into the mix with something like 5FPS. Now the kind of electronics and architecture required to extract those MASSIVE data volumes that come out of the sensor, process all of that in fractions of a second, and transport it via a data-pipeline architecture that is robust enough to support such MASSIVE data volumes, and finally onto the buffer or Flash-memory, is a whole different dimension, from doing the same task with a 12MP product.
I was frankly totally surprised that the A900 had 5FPS, with a 24.6MP monster resolution sensor and the whole package being sold for $3K USD. Even the 1DSMKIII, with its 21MP sensor and 5FPS, is moving FAR less amounts of data than the A900, since a full-RAW file (14-bit) in the Canon 1DSMKIII is around 24MB in size, while the A900 has a nearly 40MB RAW file. So when shooting RAW+JPEG at 5FPS, the A900 is processing/crunching/moving around 250+ MegaBytes (MB) of data PER SECOND and the kind of sophisticated and specialized architecture needed to pull it off, is where the LARGE cost factor comes in.
Remember that a Film camera (say a 1D version) and a Digital 1DSMKIII has a cost difference of around $6000. That $6000 difference, is over and above the cost of the outer shell and the "cheap bits" like the shutter, the mirror box and the other stuff and is almost ENTIRELY due to the electronics, including the cost of the sensor.
So yes, Silicon is expensive and pixels could be even more expensive......especially when one needs a decent enough FPS.
Bottomline, if Sony comes out with an A800 with a 12MP FF sensor, operating at 5FPS, they could borrow some of the "cheap bits" like the shutter and mirror box etc from the A900, and borrow the downstream electronics (CPU, Data pipeline electronics etc) from the A700 (same 12MP, right ?), and come out with a MUCH cheaper product that the Full-frame A900, without "cutting any corners".....remember the electronics in the A900 are several classes above the A700, since both are at 5FPS, but in case of the A900, it is a 24MP monster churning out TWICE as much data in the SAME time slice.....even moving to a 6FPS in the A900 would be an impossibility with currently available cutting edge processor and electronics technology, IMO, else the D3X would have done it at its $8000 pricepoint.
-
Hi!
Just buy Canon and be happy! Let those who prefer other makes spend their money they way prefer.
Best regards
Erik
This is because with the A900, all of these lenses are useful again. Who would have guessed?
By the same logic, Sony could also price the A900 at $1500. It's simple marketing, really, and some guy in marketing decides what he thinks the market will pay for the thing. The bosses sign off on it and Sony makes loads of money. They certainly could offer a lower-end full frame version. I don't know - call it the A90. Few less features and a 12MP sensor... Actually, a naming system like this would probably be useful.
What a load of rubbish. At least 75% of the lenses are literally the EXACT same lenses as on the Maxxum series. Just with a Sony badge and in a new cardboard box. Maybe a slightly different set of coatings and internal oils or something to keep the eco-geeks happy. They have a "system" - it's already there. Just Sony isn't calling it the "Maxxum A900 Digital". I'm not ignoring anything here. Check the various sites I linked to with lens data. As such, that means that the older Maxxum lenses *are* the lenses that you use with it if you want the rest of the system/options. At least until Sony decides to make brand new lenses, that is. But I suspect that the 400 and 600mm zooms aren't going to be brought back very quickly...
No, and that was the problem. If you have a full frame sensor and a proper body design, you don't need to do anything at all to that film lens. But for several years, Sony didn't upgrade their lenses. As a result, it caused problems that created a bad taste in many professionals' mouths. OTOH, now that the A900 is out, they don't have to change anything... Good in a way, but it completely punks the older Sony DSLR owners (hello, A700?) who are now effectively left behind and without any option. Sony's basically saying "buy full-frame or nothing at all". Which is why I said they need to come out with less expensive full frame models as well, because not everyone can handle $2500 for a camera or needs 25MP. Or else Sony will only have two types of users - brand new ones who don't largely know that the Maxxum lenses are essentially identical and older 35mm film users who were waiting to make the switch(what - 5% of the stragglers?)
Real pros said "screw this" a couple of years ago and moved to the Canon 5D, most likely, since it was full frame, cheap, and worked. It's going to take a lot of work to get them back, I fear.
-
Hi!
Just buy Canon and be happy! Let those who prefer other makes spend their money they way prefer.
Best regards
Erik
The problem is, which Canon? It seems that 5D2 owners were not that that happy on the Antarctica trip
[sorry, but no 'BIGGIN IT UP' for Canon or Nikon allowed, even if you have more lenses]
Only joking, us 'less of a kind' would just love an option for an f4 zoom range, only a bit sharper than the current Canon's, apart from the 70-200 f4 of course!!! Please, let the 24-105G be true!
-
Both articles and much of this thread seem to be sensible discussions of the issues, and although there is a recognition that quality may be subjective, I feel there could be more exploration of factors other than just maximum potential image quality – factors which are mostly subjective.
For a landscape photographer, image quality, especially resolution, ranks very highly in his or her priorities. And if the articles make the assumption that quality is being evaluated for these users, fine. However, other users may have very different priorities that effect their evaluation of “quality.”
For example, the best image quality in the world is useless if you can’t get the shot. Some factors that may affect this (in no particular order):
• Reliability – Build quality, ruggedness, autofocus, etc. Can I have confidence that this body and other gear will not let me down when the going gets tough?
• Speed – How fast can I set up the shot and get the image? Probably higher priority for photojournalists and sports or nature shooters - almost irrelevant for landscapes (except for that beautiful changing light!). Autofocus (especially in tough conditions), frame rate, processing speed, ergonomics to change settings (both hardware and menus), etc.
• Support – Not tripods, but manufacturer service and support when there are problems. How much, how reliable, how fast, and where available around the world? Will the manufacture stay in business and be able to keep up product development? Do accessory manufacturers support the product?
• Size & Weight – Already mentioned in the articles, but again, if I don’t have the gear with me, I won’t get the shot. Need to consider the whole system.
• Range or Versatility in a variety of situations. Low light performance – autofocus, high ISO noise, etc. Moving objects – again autofocus performance.
• Miscellaneous Features – Image stabilization, dust removal, specialized accessories and other features which may be more highly important for some users.
The cost side of the value equation seems fairly straight forward. But I might mention switching costs – Less of a factor if one can buy it all, but what’s already in the lens and accessory kit certainly is a factor. Another switching cost may be the learning curve to master a new system.
Bottom line for me – Costs are easy to figure. Gear quality clearly goes far beyond what’s in the technical tests, but the various elements of quality will be prioritized differently by different users for different purposes. Thus if value is a combination of cost and quality, value will also vary from user to user and cannot be reduced to a single metric. Keep up the excellent subjective reviews.
Jeff Hill
-
Hi!
Just buy Canon and be happy! Let those who prefer other makes spend their money they way prefer.
Best regards
Erik
Heh.
I figured most went with Canon due to the lower cost to transition at the time. Those that didn't almost all went to Nikon. A few, like myself, held out for Minolta/Sony to get its act together. I just don't know, though... My priorities have moved beyond MP and more to the actual sensor itself.
I just with Fuji or Sigma would do something already...
-
I'll answer for the Nikon part, the following lenses have been updated in the past year or so, focussing on FF lenses only:
- 14-24 f2.8
- 24-70 f2.8
- 24, 45 and 85 PC-E T/S lenses
- 50 f1.4
- 60 f2.8 and 105 VR f2.8 macro lenses
- 70-300 VR f4.5-5.6
- 200 VR f2.0
- 300 VR f2.8
- 400 VR f2.8
- 500 VR f4
- 600 VR f4
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm wondering if you've used and have impressions on any of the following
80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D
200mm f/4 micro
180mm f/2.8D ED-IF
300mm f/4D ED-IF
135mm f/2.0D AF-DC
I do a fair amount of stitching and I'm looking for the best glass I can find between 70 and 300 (if you have recommendations I'd love to hear them)
-
I'm wondering if you've used and have impressions on any of the following
80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D
200mm f/4 micro
180mm f/2.8D ED-IF
300mm f/4D ED-IF
135mm f/2.0D AF-DC
I do a fair amount of stitching and I'm looking for the best glass I can find between 70 and 300 (if you have recommendations I'd love to hear them)
I have had good results with the 180 mm f2.8 image quality wise, but it's nodal point location is no convenient for accurate stitching since it appears to be located behind the sensor which results in a pretty un-balanced assembly.
The 70-300 is a decent stitching lens when stopped down to f8 or so.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If "BETTER VALUE" is defined as "the most options for the least money" ... and if "POORER VALUE" is defined as "less available options for more money" ... then the Canon system offers a better value as a whole system overall than Sony ... or you can say Sony offers a poorer value as a whole system overall than Canon ... however a person wishes to phrase it.
Jack
.
Jack,
I can see your logic if you define value the way you do here.
I think however that value is not an absolute but tied to what people need and want, i.e subjective. So for me "BETTER VALUE" is defined as "the most options I need or want for the least money". So for instance if I put most value on a set of stabilized high speed primes (35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 135/1.8) my assessment of the the value of one system vs. the other looks much different than yours.
I think most people who have reacted vigorously to you posts in this thread are not disputing your assessment of what determines value in a system for you, they're simply saying that for them other factors determine their assessment of the value.
I hope this helps, because inbetween some of the flaming posts there is a very interesting discussion going on here, which I also value very much
-
Hi,
I'm well aware of this consideration. As a matter of fact the A900 has to Bionz chips for handling the amount of data, on the other hand I'd guess that the Bionz chip is quite cheap in production, because production costs go up rapidly with die size, my guess is that cost is like proportional to chip dimension along one axis to the power of four. If we assume that an APS-C sensor would cost around 200 USD than accoding to my guess the FF sensor would cost around 1000 USD, if we no assume that the Bionz would cost about 20 USD each the additional cost would be 820 USD for the A900 and about 800 USD for the theoretical A800 (or what we call it).
Of course this is only speculation as none of the prices are known.
Would be nice if some from the electrical engineering department of Luminous Landscape would chime in, Bernard do you listen?!
Erik,
Always listening to you. But I don't have any useful information to feed the discussion with I am afraid...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What a load of rubbish. At least 75% of the lenses are literally the EXACT same lenses as on the Maxxum series. Just with a Sony badge and in a new cardboard box. Maybe a slightly different set of coatings and internal oils or something to keep the eco-geeks happy. They have a "system" - it's already there. Just Sony isn't calling it the "Maxxum A900 Digital". I'm not ignoring anything here. Check the various sites I linked to with lens data. As such, that means that the older Maxxum lenses *are* the lenses that you use with it if you want the rest of the system/options. At least until Sony decides to make brand new lenses, that is. But I suspect that the 400 and 600mm zooms aren't going to be brought back very quickly...
Take a look at the Sony catalogue and the huge holes in the range. No tilt shifts. No 200mm micro. No long telephotos. The fact that some are available second hand is irrelevant. I don't want to buy my main lenses second hand and nor do many other people. No amount of marketing spiel by you or other Sony fans will change that fact.
-
Take a look at the Sony catalogue and the huge holes in the range. No tilt shifts. No 200mm micro. No long telephotos. The fact that some are available second hand is irrelevant. I don't want to buy my main lenses second hand and nor do many other people. No amount of marketing spiel by you or other Sony fans will change that fact.
As people have stated....
- not everybody is interested in $8k telephotos.
- there are two ~200mm macros, Sigma and Tamron.
- and T&S are available as third party glass (if expensive)
No one is saying the system is complete, but there are a lot of shooters out there where the range of Sony glass available is more than enough. In fact, all of my photographer friends do not have any specific glass that isn't available in Sony mount in some form or another, apart from the guys who own MP-E macros.
Lots of people love CZ glass whether you like this fact of not. And as other Sony people have stated, having CZ intergrated into Sony is a huge advantage for some, giving both IS and AF on Sony cams. If you are not fussed about CZ glass far enough this adds no value, to you but please don't speak for all.
For me, a900 + 16-200 in f2.8 and a number primes is probably more investment than I would personally like to make. I find it pretty funny when people try telling me that my photography life will not be complete unless I have the ability of adding a 600mm f4 tele. And yes I have been told this (on another forum) by some Canon owner who after 'his three year journey' owned a 40D and some crappy 300mm zoom. He said, "I like the idea that if I want one it's available." I am really not interested in wildlife photography, so why I should be worrying about glass I'll never buy is anyone's guess.
I would hope that people who own FF cameras should have some idea of what glass they want/need. Once you have YOUR requirements (rather than someone elses) you can choose a system. The good news is that I've yet to hear of anyone becoming ill because they choose the wrong system. Most people who find that one system isn't giving them all they need, either swap or run dual systems side by side. I know people who switched from Canon to Nikon when the D700 came out. I also know people who switched from the D700 to the 5D2 when the later was released. There are people unhappy because Canon's 5D2 wasn't a lower resolution High ISO monster. I know people who have switched to Nikon when the a900 was released. We all know someone who has switched to the a900 for 2009 (Michael). I also know people who run dual systems, and in some cases (not all) have invested in Sony becase Nikon or Canon don't meet their requirements. The point is, these requirements are personal - It's not a one size fits all.
What would be a really interesting execise is if a number of people listed their 'current gear' and we could see whether their requirements would be meet or not by the Sony system. Not to try and prove a point, but to get some useful metrics.
The only thing that I would point out is that this is a Landscape Photography forum rather than a macro or wildlife
-
As people have stated....
- not everybody is interested in $8k telephotos.
- there are two ~200mm macros, Sigma and Tamron.
- and T&S are available as third party glass (if expensive)
No one is saying the system is complete, but there are a lot of shooters out there where the range of Sony glass available is more than enough. In fact, all of my photographer friends do not have any specific glass that isn't available in Sony mount in some form or another, apart from the guys who own MP-E macros.
Lots of people love CZ glass whether you like this fact of not. And as other Sony people have stated, having CZ intergrated into Sony is a huge advantage for some, giving both IS and AF on Sony cams. If you are not fussed about CZ glass far enough this adds no value, to you but please don't speak for all.
For me, a900 + 16-200 in f2.8 and a number primes is probably more investment than I would personally like to make. I find it pretty funny when people try telling me that my photography life will not be complete unless I have the ability of adding a 600mm f4 tele. And yes I have been told this (on another forum) by some Canon owner who after 'his three year journey' owned a 40D and some crappy 300mm zoom. He said, "I like the idea that if I want one it's available." I am really not interested in wildlife photography, so why I should be worrying about glass I'll never buy is anyone's guess.
I would hope that people who own FF cameras should have some idea of what glass they want/need. Once you have YOUR requirements (rather than someone elses) you can choose a system. The good news is that I've yet to hear of anyone becoming ill because they choose the wrong system. Most people who find that one system isn't giving them all they need, either swap or run dual systems side by side. I know people who switched from Canon to Nikon when the D700 came out. I also know people who switched from the D700 to the 5D2 when the later was released. There are people unhappy because Canon's 5D2 wasn't a lower resolution High ISO monster. I know people who have switched to Nikon when the a900 was released. We all know someone who has switched to the a900 for 2009 (Michael). I also know people who run dual systems, and in some cases (not all) have invested in Sony becase Nikon or Canon don't meet their requirements. The point is, these requirements are personal - It's not a one size fits all.
What would be a really interesting execise is if a number of people listed their 'current gear' and we could see whether their requirements would be meet or not by the Sony system. Not to try and prove a point, but to get some useful metrics.
The only thing that I would point out is that this is a Landscape Photography forum rather than a macro or wildlife
Can't you people understand simple English? I am talking about MY OPINION of the system. I don't want used lenses. I don't want third party macro lenses (of which I have a low opinion). I don't want very very expensive TS lenses. And I suspect my views are shared by many other people. Pro nature shooters will probably dismiss a system that does not have new long telephotos, with or without IS/VR.
Yes I am sure for many people - such as you - the system is very nice. I have made that clear. But for many it isn't. Can you not understand that? No amount of argument will get round that fact.
I'm only bothering to reply as you quoted me.
BTW my opinion is not rubbish as Plekto said. I am quite entitled to hold the opinion that a system is not good enough for MY needs without being derided. I don't tell other what they need.
-
Can't you people understand simple English? I am talking about MY OPINION of the system. I don't want used lenses. I don't want third party macro lenses (of which I have a low opinion). I don't want very very expensive TS lenses. And I suspect my views are shared by many other people. Pro nature shooters will probably dismiss a system that does not have new long telephotos, with or without IS/VR.
Yes I am sure for many people - such as you - the system is very nice. I have made that clear. But for many it isn't. Can you not understand that? No amount of argument will get round that fact.
I'm only bothering to reply as you quoted me.
BTW my opinion is not rubbish as Plekto said. I am quite entitled to hold the opinion that a system is not good enough for MY needs without being derided. I don't tell other what they need.
Yes I can understand english very well, but again you seem to be wanting to speak about other people's requirements rather than your own. The very sentence "...And I suspect my views are shared by many other people" is hardly talking about YOUR requirements (unless you have 'many personalities').
I'm sure if I made a statement "Both Nikon and Canon have gaps in their system which I'm sure many people agree." - you might object somewhat.
Anyway, enjoy the snow!
-
Where I live the typical differences in prices are MUCH lesser. Typical Eurozone prices (www.technikdirekt.de)
Canon 50D 1119
Canon 600 8481
Nikon 300D 1499
Nikon 600 8999
That amounts to about 800 Euro difference, nothing to write home about in the grand scheme of things and many would argue you're buying a better camera and a more modern lens.
Granted that will buy you somewhat less pixels on the target since the Canon is of somewhat higher resolution and the crop factor is 1.6 vs. 1.5 (not 1.4 mind you) but still nothing to write home about.
In the UK the Nikon is today cheaper than the Canon, by a lot.
-
Yes I can understand english very well, but again you seem to be wanting to speak about other people's requirements rather than your own. The very sentence "...And I suspect my views are shared by many other people" is hardly talking about YOUR requirements (unless you have 'many personalities').
I'm sure if I made a statement "Both Nikon and Canon have gaps in their system which I'm sure many people agree." - you might object somewhat.
Anyway, enjoy the snow!
No I don't disagree with your statement about Canon and Nikon. But if you went on to say that the Sony system is as complete, then yes I would argue. That would be a massive distortion of reality. Just because it has one well priced full frame DSLR that is liked by one or two pro-photographers does not make the system complete. It has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese.
Here is my original statement:
"Now when it comes to Sony, it is a new system, and it is not yet as strong as Canon and Nikon. It looks like it will be one of the big names on a par with Canon and Nikon, in a year or two. For many it is already on a par, if not ahead. For others it is not yet there."
I stand by that, though I think we need to wait more like 5 years. Anyone who ignores the large holes is deluding themselves. For me it is not good enough. And nor will it be good enough for many if not most sports, low light and bird photographers. Bear in mind that until a couple of years ago forums were full of people migrating from Nikon to Canon. I nearly did so myself. And if you want proof, just look at sales figures. I'm sure you will argue about the power of marketing, but it ain't so. Look how the A900 seems to have taken off. Why? Because for one market segment - landscapers, portrait photographers etc - the A900 and Zeiss lenses are highly competitive if not class leading. Once they get a Zeiss 200mm macro, and a few other lenses, then you will see sales grow even more.
-
No I don't disagree with your statement about Canon and Nikon. But if you went on to say that the Sony system is as complete, then yes I would argue. That would be a massive distortion of reality. Just because it has one well priced full frame DSLR that is liked by one or two pro-photographers does not make the system complete. It has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese.
Here is my original statement:
"Now when it comes to Sony, it is a new system, and it is not yet as strong as Canon and Nikon. It looks like it will be one of the big names on a par with Canon and Nikon, in a year or two. For many it is already on a par, if not ahead. For others it is not yet there."
I stand by that, though I think we need to wait more like 5 years. Anyone who ignores the large holes is deluding themselves. For me it is not good enough. And nor will it be good enough for many if not most sports, low light and bird photographers. Bear in mind that until a couple of years ago forums were full of people migrating from Nikon to Canon. I nearly did so myself. And if you want proof, just look at sales figures. I'm sure you will argue about the power of marketing, but it ain't so. Look how the A900 seems to have taken off. Why? Because for one market segment - landscapers, portrait photographers etc - the A900 and Zeiss lenses are highly competitive if not class leading. Once they get a Zeiss 200mm macro, and a few other lenses, then you will see sales grow even more.
You'll be glad to hear that I (mostly) agree with your statements, although I hope it will be more like 2 years rather than 5!
But, if the economy forces development cut backs then it maybe end up being 5 years. I think it will be interesting to see what comes out of PMA - might give us some insight about the speed of lens development which Sony believes it needs to do to complete and compete.
-
With respect to almost all posters, all of this crap is speculation. If any of us see fit to purchase a d3x because we believe that it will help us to make $$$$, so what. 3 years ago a d2x cost me $6000.00C, that cost was recovered in the first 2 jobs. I don't hear any griping that the lates Porsche or Ducati costs $&xxx, Peter
-
Here is my original statement:
"Now when it comes to Sony, it is a new system, and it is not yet as strong as Canon and Nikon. It looks like it will be one of the big names on a par with Canon and Nikon, in a year or two. For many it is already on a par, if not ahead. For others it is not yet there."
I'll take issue with the "new system" part of that statement - up until last year I owned a number of lenses - some of which were more than 9 years old that would have worked fine on a A900. As far as I'm concerned - none of the manufacturers have a complete system. Nikon & Canon just come closer than anyone else.
As a general statement (not a rebuttal to anyone's posts)
The Sony system easily covers every lens I currently have for my Nikon. If I end up going Phase One, I'll have even fewer options for lenses, which doesn't matter as long as I can get what I need. EVERYTHING is trade-offs. Value does not equal price, value depends on the person doing the evaluation. Some people will put more importance on price others on features and others on perceived image quality - or any of a dozen other factors. The only thing we can do is help people understand the realities behind the marketing hype and share our experiences that might relate to someone's goals.
-
You buy the equipment that fits your needs. I own canon becuase I like the crop on the 1d mk111 I shoot profootball. I shoot availble light concerts and street scenes. IE I shoot the 24 35 50 f1.4 lenses and the 85 1.2. I shoot leica as well for the street work,nothing beats a rangefinder for keeping you discreet . Nikon does not have fast wides in 24 or 35. I wish canon made better wideangle zooms but on balance canon is better for me. I also shoot the full frame 5d and the 1ds mk111 .
-
Take a look at the Sony catalogue and the huge holes in the range. No tilt shifts. No 200mm micro. No long telephotos.
And if you look at the actual dealers, you see a plethora of new old stock Minolta lenses as well, plus Sigma, and others. Your definition of "new" isn't passing any reasonable test here. Shoot, look at this:
Ebay Item number: 280274761896
This is a brand new, never opened new old stock Minolta Film camera. This was made in 1998. If I can find ten year old new gear in minutes...
T/S - see below for comments. Telephotos, too. 200mm micro, well, there are f/4.5 200mm macros out there. F/4.0 vs 4.5 is really splitting hairs.
The fact that some are available second hand is irrelevant. I don't want to buy my main lenses second hand and nor do many other people.
This is what I have a problem with. 95% of real pros *will* absolutely buy used lenses if there is a specific need. In fact, most prefer it because honestly, who wants to pay a zillion dollars for a new highly focused(read - single limited use) lens, when there is a like new one right over there in the dealer's case? Have you priced what the super long telephotos go for? Even Canon and Nikon have gaps in this area where you need to consider used older lenses, depending upon your need(say, you need a lens that can be stopped down to F/32 as one recent thread on this forum was asking about).
And as for tilt/shift lenses, virtually all users don't actually own one. Very specific use tool that usually is bought from another maker that will give you your choice of mounting system. 99% of the time, it's also manual focus. Honestly, if I was looking at a T/S lens, the OEM makers are the last place I'd look for one, considering the stupid pricing.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/367685/ (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/367685/)
$500 and works just fine. Your choice of mount. And this is just one of many makers of such lenses. Only the truly daft would limit themselves to only OEM lenses.
If you add in third party lenses, you are left with three DSLR lines - Nikon, Sony, and Canon. They are full range. Olympus and Leica and many of the others(plus nearly every MF camera)... they are really not full-range. I find it a bit annoying that you seem to be putting Sony in the same category, despite there being several hundred lenses for all three of the makers that will work.
If I was looking at a camera and the caption said "compatible with 200+ lenses" I'd consider that to be a "complete system", no matter who was making it.
-
Nikon shines more brightly:
85mm F2.8 PC micro: superb with no direct Canon equivalent.
45mm F2.8 PCE micro: superb with no direct Canon equivalent.
60mm F2.8 AFS micro: superb, beats the Canon.
105mm F2.8 VR AFS : no Canon equivalent.
200mm F4 AFS micro: superb. I have seen numerous reviews of the Canon lens which indicate that it is not as good.
Now the one big advantage of many Nikon micro lenses is that you can set the true aperture on the lens. The older 105mm lenses have aperture rings, are available used, and are excellent. I don't think you can do that with Canon. And it is easy to reverse a Nikon wide angle lens to get > 1:1. You can't do that with Canon, without buying an expensive contraption.
Nikon flash is superb and easy to use. The R1 macro flash works really well. You can use the built in flash as a commander to control off camera flashes wirelessly. I don't think Canon can do that. If you want to set up a flash system to capture a fox, and not have wires all over the place, it's easier with Nikon.
Canon equipment is by all accounts top class and it will take you a long while to discover the strengths and weaknesses of a system. I am sure Canon have strengths I know nothing about. The truth is that whichever system you use, you will find weak points, and what will make your photos will be your skill in using what you have got. You will find that it takes quite a while to discover new techniques and workarounds for issues.
May I suggest you wait until you have more experience with a system before you engage in brand wars? I have used Nikon for decades, but do not feel able to engage in a brand war, as I have never used Canon EOS.
Now when it comes to Sony, it is a new system, and it is not yet as strong as Canon and Nikon. It looks like it will be one of the big names on a par with Canon and Nikon, in a year or two. For many it is already on a par, if not ahead. For others it is not yet there.
I disagree with your statements about every one of those lenses. The Canon's 50mm macro and 60 mm macro are superb. The Canon 100mm macro is as good as Nikon's for half the price. Again, since the subject is value, Nikon again fails in this regard. A great product, yes. The same value, no. Further, Canon has the MP 65mm which offers 5:1 magnification, which is something for which Nikon, in fact, has no equivalent.
Both systems are great; however Canon's costs far less to get into---which again refreshes the topic of "value" ...
,
-
Whoops, sorry if I was unclear. I wasn't responding to your macro needs. I was responding to your statement, "For the dedicated landscape photographer doing very large prints, none of this matters, and the Nikon D3x and 14-24 mm and 24-70 mm would be the best value for even money." The A900 with the two ZA zooms I mentioned costs around $5000 less than that Nikon setup, and I believe that is a major point of MR's article, seeing as how he is a landscape shooter. Now, there is definitely room for discussion about which will provide the best IQ (it could go either way,) but it's splitting hairs. Preliminarily, it seems the 14-24 Nikon is a bit better than the ZA 16-35, and the ZA 24-70 is a bit better than the Nikon. Nikon does have t/s, but Sony has a Zeiss WA prime coming and expensive 3rd party t/s, so...splitting hairs.
Personally, I'm a studio portrait shooter, and I wouldn't trade the A900 and ZA lenses for any other 35mm system, regardless of price, and that mostly has to do with preferring the way Zeiss draws a scene, and still wanting autofocus. Also, the A900 has the best vertical grip ever made with every control doubled, and the best viewfinder. Different shooters, different needs
As far as the A900 vs. 5Dii with 16-35 and 24-70, that depends on the shooter. I never shoot beyond ISO 1600 (rarely even ISO 800,) so the A900 is the no-brainer, as it's better at low ISO and has the Zeiss'. For one that spends most of his/her time over ISO 1600, then I'd say 5dii (I should say that both of those Canon zoom lenses are known to be just a little soft.)
As far as Macro, Sony doesn't have that sweet 1X5 macro, but there is a great Minolta 1x3, so advantage Canon. As far as regular macro lenses, the Sony 50 and 100 are as good as any Canon.
Telephoto with Sony will be interesting. Their new 70-400 looks to be the best of it's kind, but we'll see. Sony has been previewing long, expensive tele primes, but we don't know when they are coming, so I'd agree Canon seems the way to go. Outside of 300 2.8, one has to go with used Minolta primes, which are great, but hard to find.
Sorry for such a lengthy, yet generic rundown of my opinions. These forums become so Canon/Nikon-centric that I feel like I need to interject a little Sony love in here sometimes If anything, it's good for people to see what Sony has, because many don't realize that, whilst still not coming close in numbers to Canon, Sony has some 26 or so lenses, with more coming, and that's not to mention many of the great legacy Minolta autofocus lenses.
Very nice post. I too am pulling for Sony. It's just that right now they don't meet my needs as economically as Canon does.
However, I think their in-body image stabilization and Zeiss lenses make them very, very interesting to watch at this point. For my particular interests, macro, they were somewhere inbetween price between Canon and Nikon. I really think they have the muscle to make better equipment for a cheaper price than either company, and maybe at some point fairly soon, it will in fact be Sony who is unilaterally offering the most camera/lenses for the least money.
If that day comes, it will be they who offer the best camera value
-
John, have you considered the fact that the build quality, viewfinder, and reliability of the Canon prosumer bodies vs. a D300 are not in the same class.
Michael just reported in another thread that his 5D Mk II died on the second day in the Antarctic trip. Read here: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....31747&st=20 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31747&st=20)
Here:
http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RuaW (http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RuaW)
someone reports having left his 5D in the car overnight in sub-freezing temperatures - doesn't work the next morning. What's up with that?!
Where I live, the mean temperature outdoors is below freezing for five months every year! Do you think I would get a Canon prosumer camera after these reports? I have never, ever had a Nikon DSLR fail due to cold weather. I have had film SLRs run out of batteries in the cold but they worked fine after replacement with new ones. Total camera failure? Unbelievable. I sometimes need to shoot close to -30 C.
In this report,
http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00NxQL (http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00NxQL)
a mirror falls of the 5D in normal use. I have read several such reports of this particular camera model, never others.
Viewfinder quality: I can't see more than 75% of the viewfinder image in the case of the 5D without taking off my glasses. I think the Canon 50D/5D Mk II viewfinders aren't comparable with the Sony or Nikon prosumer viewfinders. To me, shooting 25% blind isn't an option.
These factors seriously affect my perception of the value of e.g. the Canon 5D (Mk II).
I would appreciate if people would take home one message: value is completely dependent on the intended uses and preferences of the user. Categorical statements like "Canon offers more value, period" should not be made since they don't have general validity. If I can't see through the viewfinder properly, or if the camera can only be used in the summer and mirrors fall off it, it just isn't the camera for me no matter how much less expensive their supertelephotos are.
Before anyone notes, I am perfectly aware that people successfully use Canon 1 series camera bodies throughout the winter in extreme conditions. That's not my point - then, for full-frame we get back to the 6-8k price category so much criticized for the value aspect.
Good counter-point.
However, it is only a good counter-point for those in ice-cold climates
Being in Florida, however, what happens at -30 degrees is of little concern to me ... but if I ever visit my friend up in Montana, I will remember this post
Jack
PS: I am curious how the 50D would handle in that weather.
-
I know that statement is flawed. But, I was just trying to show Jack that Canon is not always the best value. A point which he seems to have ignored since. :-)
I tend to shoot two bodies so having overlapping lenses annoys me somewhat. I currently shoot either 17-40 and 24-70 or 24-70 and 70-200, and I often find myself framing with the 17-40 only to realize I should be using the 24-70 as I've moved into its FL and I know it's the sharper lens of the two.
In the end, it's all subjective!
I never said Canon was "always" the best value. I said it offered the best whole system value. What you have ignored twice (three? four times?) is my acknowledging that, in certain combinations/applications, other systems do in fact offer the best value.
But none of them can touch Canon for value as a whole system ...
Jack
.
-
Jack,
I can see your logic if you define value the way you do here.
I think however that value is not an absolute but tied to what people need and want, i.e subjective. So for me "BETTER VALUE" is defined as "the most options I need or want for the least money". So for instance if I put most value on a set of stabilized high speed primes (35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 135/1.8) my assessment of the the value of one system vs. the other looks much different than yours.
I think most people who have reacted vigorously to you posts in this thread are not disputing your assessment of what determines value in a system for you, they're simply saying that for them other factors determine their assessment of the value.
I hope this helps, because inbetween some of the flaming posts there is a very interesting discussion going on here, which I also value very much
That is pretty much what I was trying to express.
For instance, let us even "cross platforms" for a moment to show just how much more value the Canon offers than Nikon. In the US I have previously shown how, at super-telephoto there is simply no equal in value to the Canon system. In either quality or price. Just to get a 50D and 600mm lens (versus a D300 and 600mm Nikkor), I have saved $2,700+
Now, conceding that Nikon offers the better wides, with that extra $2,700 I just saved in buying Canon, I could buy a Nikon D700
In other words, if I bought a Canon crop and super-telephoto, instead of Nikon, I would not only be getting the better reach, the better lens, and saving money ... but with that very savings, I could turn right around and buy Nikon ... and take advantage of their strong point, which is wide-angle. I would essentially be getting a "free" Nikon D700 by buying Canon ... and I could choose to buy Nikkor's 14 mm for a wide to go with it
So for those who were talking of multiple bodies, why not cross-platform multiple bodies?
Buy the system that offers you the best price/performance in their area of specialty, and then take that savings and buy towards their competitor's best price/performance specialty ...
Jack
.
-
Jack, I forgot to mention that there have been some pretty strong rumors that Sony has an all new, Sony/Zeiss 200mm macro lens coming, which may peak your interest a little bit, although Im sure that sucker won't be cheap. Regardless, I think you're right that Sony has the possibility of bringing a down. On the opposite end of the spectrum from my A900, Sony has an A200 which is very good and very cheap, and it outspecs the Nikons in it's price range (lenses not withstanding.)
-
Hi,
I see your point. I'd just add that I essentially always carry two bodies, just in case a body would fail. Having a cross platform mix you would not be able most of your lenses on the backup body if your main camera failed.
I'm also somewhat skeptical about all this discussion about value. Most of us have a lot of legacy stuff and you simply go on with what you happen to have, this may admittedly not always the smartest. IMHO there is also a bit to much Canon bashing for wide angles, it seems to be true that none of the full frame Canon extreme wides are top notch, but Nikon has also only one top notch lens, the 14-24/2.8 and before the D3x no really demanding camera to put it on. AFAIK the Canon 10-22 is a very good lens and so is the 24-105/4.
Best regards
Erik Kaffehr
That is pretty much what I was trying to express.
For instance, let us even "cross platforms" for a moment to show just how much more value the Canon offers than Nikon. In the US I have previously shown how, at super-telephoto there is simply no equal in value to the Canon system. In either quality or price. Just to get a 50D and 600mm lens (versus a D300 and 600mm Nikkor), I have saved $2,700+
Now, conceding that Nikon offers the better wides, with that extra $2,700 I just saved in buying Canon, I could buy a Nikon D700
In other words, if I bought a Canon crop and super-telephoto, instead of Nikon, I would not only be getting the better reach, the better lens, and saving money ... but with that very savings, I could turn right around and buy Nikon ... and take advantage of their strong point, which is wide-angle. I would essentially be getting a "free" Nikon D700 by buying Canon ... and I could choose to buy Nikkor's 14 mm for a wide to go with it
So for those who were talking of multiple bodies, why not cross-platform multiple bodies?
Buy the system that offers you the best price/performance in their area of specialty, and then take that savings and buy towards their competitor's best price/performance specialty ...
Jack
.
-
I disagree with your statements about every one of those lenses. The Canon's 50mm macro and 60 mm macro are superb. The Canon 100mm macro is as good as Nikon's for half the price. Again, since the subject is value, Nikon again fails in this regard. A great product, yes. The same value, no. Further, Canon has the MP 65mm which offers 5:1 magnification, which is something for which Nikon, in fact, has no equivalent.
Both systems are great; however Canon's costs far less to get into---which again refreshes the topic of "value" ...
Maybe once you have taken some photos with a DSLR and macro lenses you will understand some of the points I made. Until then I don't think you know what you are talking about.
-
Hi,
I see your point. I'd just add that I essentially always carry two bodies, just in case a body would fail. Having a cross platform mix you would not be able most of your lenses on the backup body if your main camera failed.
I'm also somewhat skeptical about all this discussion about value. Most of us have a lot of legacy stuff and you simply go on with what you happen to have, this may admittedly not always the smartest. IMHO there is also a bit to much Canon bashing for wide angles, it seems to be true that none of the full frame Canon extreme wides are top notch, but Nikon has also only one top notch lens, the 14-24/2.8 and before the D3x no really demanding camera to put it on. AFAIK the Canon 10-22 is a very good lens and so is the 24-105/4.
Best regards
Erik Kaffehr
With respect, the 17-35mm F2.8 AFS lens is top notch and for years outclassed any similar Canon wide angle lens. (Many Nikon wide primes are scheisse, but that's anotehr story.)
-
And if you look at the actual dealers, you see a plethora of new old stock Minolta lenses as well, plus Sigma, and others. Your definition of "new" isn't passing any reasonable test here. Shoot, look at this:
Ebay Item number: 280274761896
This is a brand new, never opened new old stock Minolta Film camera. This was made in 1998. If I can find ten year old new gear in minutes...
T/S - see below for comments. Telephotos, too. 200mm micro, well, there are f/4.5 200mm macros out there. F/4.0 vs 4.5 is really splitting hairs.
This is what I have a problem with. 95% of real pros *will* absolutely buy used lenses if there is a specific need. In fact, most prefer it because honestly, who wants to pay a zillion dollars for a new highly focused(read - single limited use) lens, when there is a like new one right over there in the dealer's case? Have you priced what the super long telephotos go for? Even Canon and Nikon have gaps in this area where you need to consider used older lenses, depending upon your need(say, you need a lens that can be stopped down to F/32 as one recent thread on this forum was asking about).
And as for tilt/shift lenses, virtually all users don't actually own one. Very specific use tool that usually is bought from another maker that will give you your choice of mounting system. 99% of the time, it's also manual focus. Honestly, if I was looking at a T/S lens, the OEM makers are the last place I'd look for one, considering the stupid pricing.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/367685/ (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/367685/)
$500 and works just fine. Your choice of mount. And this is just one of many makers of such lenses. Only the truly daft would limit themselves to only OEM lenses.
If you add in third party lenses, you are left with three DSLR lines - Nikon, Sony, and Canon. They are full range. Olympus and Leica and many of the others(plus nearly every MF camera)... they are really not full-range. I find it a bit annoying that you seem to be putting Sony in the same category, despite there being several hundred lenses for all three of the makers that will work.
If I was looking at a camera and the caption said "compatible with 200+ lenses" I'd consider that to be a "complete system", no matter who was making it.
It sounds to me that you could argue that white is black and black is white. You're not a used car saleman are you?
-
Maybe once you have taken some photos with a DSLR and macro lenses you will understand some of the points I made. Until then I don't think you know what you are talking about
I don't know why you felt this condescending post was necessary. John has posted numerous times from his makro shots, made with DSLR; where are yours?
-
Oh, sorry, that may be the case. My main issue is that John is an APS shooter and I don't think Canons APS-C wide angle options are bad.
Best regards
Erik
With respect, the 17-35mm F2.8 AFS lens is top notch and for years outclassed any similar Canon wide angle lens. (Many Nikon wide primes are scheisse, but that's anotehr story.)
-
I don't know why you felt this condescending post was necessary. John has posted numerous times from his makro shots, made with DSLR; where are yours?
Is it really too difficult for you to read my signature?
Yes my post was condescending. But then again, John recently made an extremely rude comment about one of my photos. So if he cannot take 'robust' comment, he should learn some manners, and not piss off other people. Maybe once he has developed some skill at macrophotography, then I will take his comments seriously. For example, he ignores the ability to set the actual aperture, rather than the effective one. I doubt he even knows the difference. But that does not stop him taking himself as an expert.
The internet is a strange place, where people can promote themselves as experts, and make strident statements, despite limited knowledge, based on how loud they can be. I would not for one minute make comments about bird photography since I have only modest experience. And as for portraits, or sports, I don't comment.
[Edited as I think the original response was too harsh.]
-
Oh, sorry, that may be the case. My main issue is that John is an APS shooter and I don't think Canons APS-C wide angle options are bad.
Best regards
Erik
From what I have heard that is true, though my knowledge is second hand.
-
I'm kind of curious about the complete lack of attention given to any DLSR brands besides the "Top 3." On the entry-level end, I've found that Olympus provides some of the best value for the features available, especially their 2-lens kits, which often go for the price of competitor's single-lens kits. For a semipro landscape or portrait shooter who's more concerned with raw image quality than speed, the Pentax K20D looks like the best choice, with image quality equal to or exceeding the faster-operating canon, nikon, olympus, and sony semipro models (that samsung sensor is a real work of art) while costing only about $750 and sealed like a pro-level offering (I'm actually expecting to pay under $700 for a new one soon). Given its suite of photographer-oriented features, I suspect it's the kind of camera Michael would enjoy having a little time to work with, and maybe he'd appreciate the magic of those all-metal limited primes as well.
I'm on a pretty low budget, personally, so even without the economic situation I have to be value-minded, and I've found that often the value is less plentiful under those flashy top-brand logos. Or I could just be shooting a plasticy xSi with the mediocre kit lens for the same price as my K20D setup. Up until where it shorts out in a sudden rain (interesting weather conditions are among my favorite subjects). Heck, even the pentax K200D has a similar level of sealing to other maker's pro cameras, and at about $540 new it's a highly competitive upper-entry level shooter. In an article about value that devotes paragraphs to cameras costing over $2000, you'd think some of these options would at least get a mention. Oh well, perhaps in future articles. And if it's a question of the products discussed being more "pro" oriented, french fashion photographer Benjamin Kanarek, formerly sponsored by Canon, currently uses and prefers the K20D and pentax glass to the 1Ds ii bodies he used to use, even going so far as to declare the image quality from the 14mp APS-C sensor visibly superior to the results he got from the 16mp FF canon sensor. Something tells me that this is a camera that certainly deserves as much "pro" level consideration as a 40D.
I'm not trying to start an argument or brand-war here, or be mindlessly critical of Michael, as I really enjoy his articles and find them to be some of the saner commentary of photographic gear available on the web today. But it would make a sense to mention some of the other options, especially those that a large portion of your audience who can't afford most of the gear you write about may find more suitable.
And I really think you would have fun trying out a K20D and maybe an FA77 or DA40mm as a walkaround.
-
I think people in the UK ignore Pentax because lenses are hard obtain (many shops do not stock any and those that do stock a limited range), and the bodies are rather limited e.g. no Nikon D700 equivalent. It is a shame as they used to be one of the great Japanese camera makers.
Regarding Olympus, I suspect micro 4/3 will sell quite well. The idea of a small digital camera with a largish sensor and high quality lenses (it can even accept Leica with an adapter) appeals. IMO it could be the modern equivalent of the Leica rangefinder (though having no experience with the latter I might be talking nonsense).
-
I think people in the UK ignore Pentax because lenses are hard obtain (many shops do not stock any and those that do stock a limited range), and the bodies are rather limited e.g. no Nikon D700 equivalent. It is a shame as they used to be one of the great Japanese camera makers.
Availability (and marketing) really are, I think, their biggest problems. Fortunately, under their recent acquisition by Hoya, the brand is supposed to be "relaunching itself as a maker of tough, weather-resistant and compact products for active outdoor photography." I'm looking forward to whatever products that philosophy produces, and hoping that it might also be accompanied by a greater push into stores and some creative new marketing. They've been getting a little better distribution-wise with the K-m, but there are camera stores in my area that don't even carry pentax point-and-shoots.
Oddly, in France they seem to have a ridiculously high DSLR market share. I have no idea why.
-
Jack, I forgot to mention that there have been some pretty strong rumors that Sony has an all new, Sony/Zeiss 200mm macro lens coming, which may peak your interest a little bit, although Im sure that sucker won't be cheap. Regardless, I think you're right that Sony has the possibility of bringing a down. On the opposite end of the spectrum from my A900, Sony has an A200 which is very good and very cheap, and it outspecs the Nikons in it's price range (lenses not withstanding.)
Heh heh, I had commented on that in an earlier part of this thread.
It actually brings up the issue of "quality versus value" yet again, but from an opposite end. Generally, it is best to get "the most you can get for the least money spent," and that has been the central theme here. However, if a particular lens (or camera) is so good, in such a unique way, that directly reflects your own personal passions in such an extreme way, than buying that piece (even if it means spending more money) will represent the best "value" to you. For instance, while many have posted "Nikon is on crack" regarding the D3x, it is clear our friend Bernard has been in blissful heaven ever since he purchased his copy
The value that this camera represents to him, for his particular photography, was clear.
I myself chose Canon because I get more of what I want, for less money spent ... but when it comes to my particular passion of macrophotography, and when I opt to move up to a 200 mm macro, you can pretty much bet your last dollar that I too will be spending the extra $$$ on the Zeiss 200mm, because the value of this particular piece of glass will affect my own personal passion for macro profoundly enough to justify the extra expense. I didn't get their 100mm, because it wasn't a true 1:1, but I will most defnitely dig a little deeper in my own pockets, because the value of the what a Zeiss-caliber 200 mm macro can do for my own deepest interest in photography will justify the extra expense, in that instance.
For telephoto, Canon already is the leader. For 5:1, Canon is already the leader. For the smaller macro lenses, Canon already offers top caliber for the least money. For wides, it is not a deep enough passion for me to justify going Nikon or Zeiss, so I can pass on these lenses and be satisfied with the 10-22mm Canon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hi,
I see your point. I'd just add that I essentially always carry two bodies, just in case a body would fail. Having a cross platform mix you would not be able most of your lenses on the backup body if your main camera failed.
I'm also somewhat skeptical about all this discussion about value. Most of us have a lot of legacy stuff and you simply go on with what you happen to have, this may admittedly not always the smartest. IMHO there is also a bit to much Canon bashing for wide angles, it seems to be true that none of the full frame Canon extreme wides are top notch, but Nikon has also only one top notch lens, the 14-24/2.8 and before the D3x no really demanding camera to put it on. AFAIK the Canon 10-22 is a very good lens and so is the 24-105/4.
Best regards
Erik Kaffehr
Actually, I was thinking about this yesterday as I was driving up to South Carolina. The 10-22 mm option was the final icing on the cake that made me buy the 50D. I do not particularly think about wide-angle shooting much, but it would still be something I would like to be able to do well if I had the occasion to do so. The new Photozone review on this lens on a 50D, as well as Michael's own here on this site, pretty much was unanimous that the 10-22 mm was an excellent wide lens, especially for the money. I believe Michael said something like, "I would not hesitate to use this lens for any professional application." So that's good enough for me.
So while there are some wides that are better, to me the difference isn't worth the added expense. To someone else, who competes with other professionals, and whose livelihood depends on wides, it might be worth that extra expense. Still, there are plenty of pros who use the 10-22 successfully, so the fact I can pick one of those up and put it on the end of my 50D for only $700 adds to the value of why I chose my own system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe once you have taken some photos with a DSLR and macro lenses you will understand some of the points I made. Until then I don't think you know what you are talking about.
What I understand, after reading your posts, is that you are still a little sore at me over my comments about your photo. Honestly, it is unbecoming for a full-grown man to hold a grudge over something this trivial.
Regarding this subject here of value and product comparisons, I actually have taken many, many, many macro photos. I also feel qualified to discuss the subject of "value for the money," as I have been shopping, pricing, and comparing lenses and product systems for almost 2 years now. I finally made a purchase decision just over a month ago precisely based on this value for the money issue. So almost all of these considerations are fresh on my mind, much more so that some pro who bought his system 4 years ago. Naturally, as has been discussed, "my" value system decision was predicated on the type of photography I am most interested in, so it might not apply to others' purposes.
Therefore, I am not "having trouble" understanding your points, you are simply wrong in all your points. The Canon macro system equals, is comparable to, or surpasses the Nikon macro system, on every level, and does so for far less expense. The only exception would perhaps be the 180 mm vs. 200 mm, where the prices are about equal, but where the Nikkor lens is considered noticeably superior. But, here again, I am going to ignore both companies' offerings and in all probability go with the Zeiss. However, I have also heard rumors of Canon coming out with a 180mm MkII ... so we will see ... but right now my 100mm lens is simply wonderful and fulfills my purposes perfectly, and it succeeds in doing so for less money than any other offering by any other company.
It is you who needs understand that the Canon 100 mm macro is almost universally-regarded as the best value in 100mm macro photography, offering terrific AF, outstanding sharpness, and superb bokeh for less than $450-$490.
In closing, I am sorry if my comments about your photo hurt your feelings that bad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't know why you felt this condescending post was necessary. John has posted numerous times from his makro shots, made with DSLR; where are yours?
Gabor, I think he posted one awhile back that I wasn't impressed with, so apparently he is still wounded and holding a grudge ...
Jack
.
-
Regarding this subject here of value and product comparisons, I actually have taken many, many, many macro photos. I also feel qualified to discuss the subject of "value for the money," as I have been shopping, pricing, and comparing lenses and product systems for almost 2 years now. I finally made a purchase decision just over a month ago precisely based on this value for the money issue. So almost all of these considerations are fresh on my mind, much more so that some pro who bought his system 4 years ago. Naturally, as has been discussed, "my" value system decision was predicated on the type of photography I am most interested in, so it might not apply to others' purposes.
Therefore, I am not "having trouble" understanding your points, you are simply wrong in all your points. The Canon macro system equals, is comparable to, or surpasses the Nikon macro system, on every level, and does so for far less expense. The only exception would perhaps be the 180 mm vs. 200 mm, where the prices are about equal, but where the Nikkor lens is considered noticeably superior. But, here again, I am going to ignore both companies' offerings and in all probability go with the Zeiss. However, I have also heard rumors of Canon coming out with a 180mm MkII ... so we will see ... but right now my 100mm lens is simply wonderful and fulfills my purposes perfectly, and it succeeds in doing so for less money than any other offering by any other company.
" you are simply wrong in all your points"
Bullshit.
Of course the Canon system is excellent, and the 100mm macro is widely respected. But if you seriously think that I am completely wrong then you are an ignorant fool.
Could you answer these questions?
1) Can you set the true aperture on a Canon 'macro' lens?
2) Can you reverse a Canon 28mm wide angle and get a 2:1 macro lens? Or reverse a zoom, and get a variable magnification macro lens? Can you reverse any Canon lens?
3) Can you mount a Canon lens on the front of another Canon lens for true macro work?
4) How much does it cost to buy a bellows unit to work with a Canon lens?
5) Does the Canon 50mm macro lens go to 1:1? (The answer is no. So to go to 1:1 you need tubes, and you get a large loss in light.) My understanding, rightly or wrongly, is that this lens is no great performer.
I can do all of the above with my Nikon system at low cost. The equation of what constitutes value is not as simple as you would have us believe.
The system you chose may well be best for you, but to say that Canon 'macro' is superior or better value than Nikon is pure nonsense. That is the sort of sweeping statement that is at best crass. In fact the only gem in the Canon 'macro' system is the 100mm macro lens. Canon have a much smaller range, and with the exception of the 100mm the performance is nothing to write home about.
Ah yes, and maybe you could explain how you engage mirror lock up on your camera. You do use that I presume?
-
Gabor, I think he posted one awhile back that I wasn't impressed with, so apparently he is still wounded and holding a grudge ...
You delude yourself. But if you use 'direct' language, don't be surprised if others return the favour.
-
Somehow some posts in this thread made me think of this cartoon I saw some time ago
-
Somehow some posts in this thread made me think of this cartoon I saw some time ago
That drawing is ancient.
-
That drawing is ancient.
Still applicable though.
I stopped reading this thread pages ago, and that despite numerous posters being on my "Ignore User" list.
-
Time to close this particular thread.
Michael