Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: Nikon in trouble?  (Read 23605 times)

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #80 on: June 21, 2016, 02:13:01 am »

John, Have you tried a Canon 5DSr with the 24-70 2.8II? In my experience, the Canon 24-70 2.8II is as sharp or sharper than most primes, that is why it's such a big deal. I also like primes but the 24-70 is THE most important lens to most working pros. To say you can use a 50 and just move closer or farther away is silly as pro's don't always have that option.

No, I haven't tried the 5DSr. I wasn't willing to spend $3500 for a camera that, ultimately, isn't as good as the $2,900 Nikon D810.

Also, I no longer use zooms at all, as they simply suck in some important areas compared to primes (especially in the bokeh department, but also in the close-range department).

And what do you define as a "working pro," exactly?

I can assure you that, as a person who documents death, dismemberment, injuries, and other forms of horrific crimes/property damage insurance claims, there is nothing "silly" about the need for good equipment ... and (IMO) some of your concerns, quite frankly, I find "silly" compared the gravity of the work which I do.

With that reality check in place, I do admit that (in minor cases) hell a cell phone is all that is needed, or a P&S. Most cases, really.

Therefore, I would have to agree that the Canon 24-70 II would be an excellent choice in most cases. (FYI, I used to use the original 24-70 and it remains the best zoom I ever used).

However, in *some* cases of my work, specialization is necessary.

For example, one of the trouble with zooms is, they don't have close-range capabilities. Both the elder, and newer, 24-70 Canon lenses had a min. focus distance of 1.25' (15").

By contrast, my Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AI-S has a min focus distance of 8.4", and it also has close-range correction, which can be a key in getting all the details of the damage/injury in relationship to the background captured.

So, when you speak of "professionalism," IMO, you're confusing "casual snapshooter" with truly niched professionalism ;)

And finally, as far as 50mm goes, your 24-70 "at 50mm" can never do what my Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI-S can do, and that is totally isolate the subject and turn the background into creamy-blur. Not only is this "artistic," but is is impactful in certain contexts.

So, we agree on some basic principles (you carry the 24-70 II, while I carry the 28mm AI-S + 50mm AI-S in this fine leather bag), but the reality of the situation is ... I can do anything you can do with these two lenses ... but you canNOT do things with with your "catch-all" zoom ... that I can do with my specialized tools ... and those "things" that my equipment allows me to do are important to the professionalism of my work, if not yours ;)



According to one very respected reviewer, the new Sony 24-70mm 2.8 is the first zoom that tests better than the Canon, which had set the bar since it's release a a few years ago. The new Canon 11-24 is also the first WA zoom to outperform the Nikon 14-24 which was the best for a while. As great as you think Nikon is, to me, the evidence is not there to support it.

Honestly, I could care less about zooms anymore. They all fail miserably when compared to specialized primes.



As great as you think Nikon is, to me, the evidence is not there to support it. I do think the D810 is a great body, but not good enough to make up for the other issues for what I shoot.

Bullshit. The evidence is not there to support the Canon 5DSr. It is ranked LOWER than the Nikon D810 in every ranking system, and website, on the internet.

Wake up and smell the coffee



I have no personal attachment to any brand at all, I just buy or rent the best tool for the job and for me and many others, Nikon isn't it.

We simply disagree, and you simply don't have a factual leg to stand on.

There is NO rating system that doesn't rate the 5DSr lower than the Nikon D810.

Denial isn't rebuttal; it is only denial.

Jack
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #81 on: June 21, 2016, 02:34:50 am »

We all have different needs, you obviously know best what works for you. I also find the enthousiasm of our friend John/Jack a bit over the top. It was over the top when he was shooting Canon and it still is over the top now that he is shooting Nikon. ;)

Interesting spelling of the word, enthusiasm ;)

When I was shooting Canon, I used the 50mm f/1.4, but it is a toy compared to the Nikkor AI-S that Michael Reichmann also felt compelled to devote an article to ...



As far as the 24-70 f2.8 lenses go, I have been using the new Nikon VR version on the D5 and it is a very good lens, much better in real world use than the lukewarm test results led me to believe. The look is nice, it is a sharp lens that is overall well behaved... and the AF is extremely fast. It is the first time I see a general purpose lens that focuses as fast as the super tele lenses, be it in very low light. Truly impressive in my book.



In your book, maybe. Can you at least straighten the horizon?



VR also helps in some circumpstances and had a major impact on the lens design, so its a bit hard to compare apple to apple with lenses not featuring VR. We'll have to see whether Canon can/wants to maintain the level of optical quality of the current 24-70 f2.8 II after adding VR and an AF of similar capability. I sure hope they do but we'll only know when the lens hits the market some day. Sony is obviously benefiting from their startegic investement in sensor bases stabilisation and it is clearly the better way forward since it keeps lens design simpler.

Not trying to change your mind or to paint Nikon in a special light, just sharing my first hand experience with this lens that is IMHO under-estimated by many.

Cheers,
Bernard

Have you been drinking, Bernard?

Sushi, sake, and pole-dancing can affect any man's senses and writing  ;D

Jack
Logged

David Anderson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 715
    • http://www.twigwater.com
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #82 on: June 21, 2016, 02:40:17 am »


According to one very respected reviewer - / - The new Canon 11-24 is also the first WA zoom to outperform the Nikon 14-24 which was the best for a while. As great as you think Nikon is, to me, the evidence is not there to support it. I do think the D810 is a great body, but not good enough to make up for the other issues for what I shoot. I have no personal attachment to any brand at all, I just buy or rent the best tool for the job and for me and many others, Nikon isn't it.

The reviews forget that the Nikon zooms they're comparing to new Canon models have been around for years and years and years. When I was a die-hard Canon guy I had a test of the then new Nikon 14-24 on their new 24 MP body as part of a test Nikon kit and it made my Canon 16-35 L II look downright pedestrian - in fact embarrassing so.
I feel the same about any new camera comparisons to the now fairly old Nikon 800 series.
My first D800e made my Canons look like expensive boat anchors with poor resolution and no dynamic range.
Sure, Canon have caught up on the lenses and the resolution, but they followed Nikon down this path, they didn't lead.

I also don't have blind brand loyalties and expect serious competition between these guys as it keeps them innovating and that can only be a good thing for all of us.

Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 12648
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #83 on: June 21, 2016, 02:46:11 am »

In your book, maybe. Can you at least straighten the horizon?

Certainly not. Not every picture needs to be taken horizontally or vertically my friend and this one works fine the way it is. In my book.

Regarding your other comments, I am sure you had understood that I was commenting both on the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 VR and about Sony 24-70 f2.8.

Cheers,
Bernard

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #84 on: June 21, 2016, 02:56:25 am »

Certainly not. Not every picture needs to be taken horizontally or vertically my friend and this one works fine the way it is. In my book.



Regarding your other comments, I am sure you had understood that I was commenting both on the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 VR and about Sony 24-70 f2.8.
Cheers,
Bernard



Nice side-step of the main question

Cheers back (don't spill)
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14805
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #85 on: June 21, 2016, 08:20:41 am »

.... I also find the enthousiasm of our friend John/Jack a bit over the top...

Oh, no! Someone stole the High(est) Priest of the Nikon Evangelists Order role from you? Ah, those Young Turks  :D

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 12648
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #86 on: June 21, 2016, 08:51:25 am »

Oh, no! Someone stole the High(est) Priest of the Nikon Evangelists Order role from you? Ah, those Young Turks  :D

Indeed.

Cheers,
Bernard

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 265
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #87 on: June 21, 2016, 10:06:53 am »

Certainly not. Not every picture needs to be taken horizontally or vertically my friend and this one works fine the way it is. In my book.

Regarding your other comments, I am sure you had understood that I was commenting both on the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 VR and about Sony 24-70 f2.8.

Cheers,
Bernard

I'm with you on this one Bernard! I love the angle.
Logged
We don't know what we don't know.

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 265
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #88 on: June 21, 2016, 10:12:17 am »

The reviews forget that the Nikon zooms they're comparing to new Canon models have been around for years and years and years. When I was a die-hard Canon guy I had a test of the then new Nikon 14-24 on their new 24 MP body as part of a test Nikon kit and it made my Canon 16-35 L II look downright pedestrian - in fact embarrassing so.
I feel the same about any new camera comparisons to the now fairly old Nikon 800 series.
My first D800e made my Canons look like expensive boat anchors with poor resolution and no dynamic range.
Sure, Canon have caught up on the lenses and the resolution, but they followed Nikon down this path, they didn't lead.

I also don't have blind brand loyalties and expect serious competition between these guys as it keeps them innovating and that can only be a good thing for all of us.

Agree on the 14-24, it was ground breaking when it came out, (and I still have mine that I use on my Sony until I upgrade to the new Canon), although the 11-24 Canon has surpassed it now. The Canon 16-35 2.3II was not a great lens. But it's not relevant in comparing the D810 to a 5DSr or lens to lens, as most buyers are probably already invested in a system and won't cross over just for one lens or one body. My points were just trying to bring John down to earth about his beloved Nikons. All in fun, as gear heads, it's a candy store of great tech these days!
Logged
We don't know what we don't know.

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 265
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #89 on: June 21, 2016, 10:23:53 am »


We simply disagree, and you simply don't have a factual leg to stand on.

There is NO rating system that doesn't rate the 5DSr lower than the Nikon D810.

Denial isn't rebuttal; it is only denial.

Jack

The discussion is about why Nikon seems to be failing in the market. My comments were to explain that my standards are extremely high and I am truly not brand centric and I have found better solutions for all types of my work. Nikon failed me in architecture as they have no answer to Canon's exclusive TS-E lenses. Many landscape shooters have the same need. There was a time when Nikon had the best lenses other than maybe Leica, but now they no longer have an exclusive on that. I think their financial issues have probably hurt their R&D for years now and it's starting to show. Let's hope they over come their problems and hang around as competition is good for everyone.
Logged
We don't know what we don't know.

graeme

  • Guest
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #90 on: June 21, 2016, 10:48:18 am »

Interesting spelling of the word, enthusiasm ;)


In your book, maybe. Can you at least straighten the horizon?


Jack

I'm pretty anal about level horizons in photos ( I use a hot shoe spirit level if I'm doing any serious photography & can spot a .2 degree tilt in a horizon ). Bernard's picture is terrific & does not need straightening.

Not sure what I'm even doing on this thread as I'm using a 5 year old Canon 60D & a little plastic EFS 24mm. Better go & do some work.
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #91 on: June 21, 2016, 11:36:07 am »

They still make lovely microscopes :)
Although my department went with Olympus, also superb microscopes.
Re: old AIS lenses - fun to shoot with these (on adapter, in my case). As far as the venerable AI-S 50 f/1.2 shot at f/1.2, as mentioned in an old article here on LL, the expected spherical aberrations of the double Gauss design can be a feature. It certainly was the cream of the crop in the old days.
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #92 on: June 21, 2016, 11:56:47 am »

The discussion is about why Nikon seems to be failing in the market.

Being #2 globally is "failing?"

Having the highest dynamic range DSLR, the highest ISO-capable camera, the finest APS-C, etc. is "failing?"

All you can do is talk about the 11-24, which is kind of a bulbous freak, and really only usable at about 14mm.

About half the people I know who've bought them, return them or sell them.



My comments were to explain that my standards are extremely high and I am truly not brand centric and I have found better solutions for all types of my work. Nikon failed me in architecture as they have no answer to Canon's exclusive TS-E lenses.

If I were shooting architecture, I would agree with you.

I haven't seen your "standards," so I can't comment there.



Many landscape shooters have the same need.

Uh, sorry. More landscape shooters have dumped Canon for Nikon (or Sony) than the reverse.

Canon is at its weakest here compared to everybody, not just Nikon.



There was a time when Nikon had the best lenses other than maybe Leica, but now they no longer have an exclusive on that. I think their financial issues have probably hurt their R&D for years now and it's starting to show. Let's hope they over come their problems and hang around as competition is good for everyone.

Again, you need to wake-up and smell the coffee

Of the top 10 primes made, Nikon makes 4 of them, with Zeiss, Leica, and Canon only having 2 apiece.

R&D troubles? Dude, what planet are you on?

Canon is the one whose very best, most modern "landscape camera" can't even equal the DR of Nikon's prosumer cameras.

The 7D Mark II fails in every sensor-respect to every other camera manufacturer on the market (except other Canons).

Meanwhile Nikon's D500 leads every other manufacturer's offering, in every respect.

And every review on Nikon's new AF system concludes that it is quantum-levels-superior to any other AF system of any other manufacturer.

Honestly, there is no point discussing the subject with someone who has just makes things up to have something to say.

I do like some of Canon's lenses, but not too many.
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #93 on: June 21, 2016, 12:01:02 pm »

Oh, no! Someone stole the High(est) Priest of the Nikon Evangelists Order role from you? Ah, those Young Turks  :D

 :P
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22242
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #94 on: June 21, 2016, 03:51:58 pm »

They still make lovely microscopes :)
Although my department went with Olympus, also superb microscopes.
Re: old AIS lenses - fun to shoot with these (on adapter, in my case). As far as the venerable AI-S 50 f/1.2 shot at f/1.2, as mentioned in an old article here on LL, the expected spherical aberrations of the double Gauss design can be a feature. It certainly was the cream of the crop in the old days.


I love 'em - when I can focus 'em! Some days I can and other days I can't.

This is with an old manual 2/35 Nikkor wide open at f2 and on a D700 at 1/2500. ISO 200 - it won't go lower as a 'normal' ISO... Shame, as there's not a lot of need to shoot at such a high shutter speed in the normal scheme of things (mine).



Rob

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 265
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #95 on: June 21, 2016, 06:42:24 pm »

Being #2 globally is "failing?"

Having the highest dynamic range DSLR, the highest ISO-capable camera, the finest APS-C, etc. is "failing?"

All you can do is talk about the 11-24, which is kind of a bulbous freak, and really only usable at about 14mm.

About half the people I know who've bought them, return them or sell them.



If I were shooting architecture, I would agree with you.

I haven't seen your "standards," so I can't comment there.



Uh, sorry. More landscape shooters have dumped Canon for Nikon (or Sony) than the reverse.

Canon is at its weakest here compared to everybody, not just Nikon.



Again, you need to wake-up and smell the coffee

Of the top 10 primes made, Nikon makes 4 of them, with Zeiss, Leica, and Canon only having 2 apiece.

R&D troubles? Dude, what planet are you on?

Canon is the one whose very best, most modern "landscape camera" can't even equal the DR of Nikon's prosumer cameras.

The 7D Mark II fails in every sensor-respect to every other camera manufacturer on the market (except other Canons).

Meanwhile Nikon's D500 leads every other manufacturer's offering, in every respect.

And every review on Nikon's new AF system concludes that it is quantum-levels-superior to any other AF system of any other manufacturer.

Honestly, there is no point discussing the subject with someone who has just makes things up to have something to say.

I do like some of Canon's lenses, but not too many.

John, if you look at the list on LenScore the first Nikon on the list that isn't 200mm or longer is like #33. Most people shoot with lenses from 24-100mm and of course the 70-200. Not sure who shoots what in your circles but in the commercial world, that's what I see. I would think most wedding shooters also need the medium zooms for 90% of their work. Your dislike for zooms is your personal choice but most of us rely on them on a daily basis and the latest Canon and Sony's are superb with the Nikon not far behind. Reading the reviews shows Zeiss primes on top with Leica in the mix as I would expect. If you are a user of super tele's then I'd say you have the right system.

I'm not saying that Nikon makes poor lenses, they don't, only that they are certainly not any better when it comes to the majority of lenses people need. I loved my D810 and actually used my Leica R's on it with fantastic results. No bias here. It was only the lack of shift lenses that moved me to Sony, and of course the ability to use Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, Sony, Leica,etc.. lenses on them. But the discussion here was about Nikon's financial problems and I'm not sure we as a group at the high end of the pyramid, have much to do with that. I was only trying to express why Nikon may be having a hard time in a very competitive camera market.

Nuff said.



Logged
We don't know what we don't know.

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2605
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #96 on: June 22, 2016, 10:02:18 am »

Re: lenses

1. Canon 11-24 vs Nikon 14-24

I call this a tie. Sure, the 11-24 is 3mm wider, but these extra millimetres are only useful in a very small number of shots - the rest of the time, you either don't want such a wide angle of view, or are stitching for greater resolution. The 14-24 is also a stop faster, with almost no coma aberration - very useful for shooting at night or other situations with lots of pinpoint lights (stars, candles, light globes, etc.). The 11-24 is more flare-resistant, though. Both lenses have big, bulbous front elements that need special care and special filters. Also, the 11-24 is several years newer - no doubt, an updated Nikon 14-24 would match the Canon.

2. Superteles and wildlife

Could swing either way, depending on your exact requirements. The new Nikon superteles are probably slightly better than the slightly-less-new Canon superteles on an optical test bench. In front of an actual sensor - even the high-resolution A7rII sensor - there's no visible difference. The real kicker here is the Canon 200-400 with inbuilt TC vs the Nikon 200-400. The Canon is prime-sharp optically, and the inbuilt TC is incredibly useful. That lens alone probably makes Canon a better system for shooting wildlife, unless you're always at 500mm and above and using 500/600/800mm primes exclusively (which would also make the D500 and long Nikon lenses likely the best option for shooting birds).

3. Other lenses

A mixed bag, but with Nikon generally on the losing end, if only by a little bit.

Zeiss glass is generally the sharpest, but lacks AF and weather sealing, making it irrelevant for many applications. Some Sigma lenses come very close (35 Art, 50 Art, etc.) and are equally usable on both systems. The best macros available are also third-party and available to both systems. The latest Sony 24-70 and 70-200 are incredibly sharp, beating out both the Canon and Nikon offerings, but, obviously, cannot be used on either Canon or Nikon. So, the competition is really among the handful of lenses where the isn't a better alternative that works equally well on both Canon and Nikon - 24-70, 70-200, 135mm, 200 f/2.0, 100-400/80-400. The 200/2.0 on each side is superb, with little between them; among the others, the Canon version generally beats the Nikon, if only slightly. Canon 24-70 beats the new Nikon 24-70 by a bit, Canon 70-200 has similar centre sharpness to the Nikon 70-200 but better corner sharpness and fewer aberrations, etc.

As for zooms not being 'good enough', that may have been the case 15 years ago, but not now:

Canon 24-70L II - was the sharpest autofocus lens across the whole image (as opposed to just one part of it) in that focal length range for a period of time, until recently surpassed by the Sony 24-70.
Nikon 14-24 and Canon 11-24 - you'd struggle to find another lens - prime or zoom, AF or MF - that's as sharp as these two in that focal length range

The main advantage of primes in normal (24-200mm) focal lengths these days isn't so much sharpness, but maximum aperture and bokeh characteristics - important for certain artistic work at shallow depths of field, but completely irrelevant for those who shoot stopped down. There's also distortion, but that's only really relevant to architectural photography and art/document reproduction, and easily corrected in software.

There's a reason the 24-70 and 70-200 are staples of photojournalists and wedding photographers, and are incredibly popular even with those shooting landscapes and other subjects. You can't foot-zoom when you're in a crowded room, you can't foot-zoom when it would mean walking 500m off a cliff (and dramatically changing the composition) to change the framing, you don't have time to change lenses when things are happening fast, you don't want to change lenses in a dust-storm or in seaspray and you don't want to carry 5 different primes when you need to leg it up a hill to shoot in a place where there aren't any roads.
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1605
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #97 on: June 22, 2016, 04:12:00 pm »

I find it amazing that a discussion which started on potential financial trouble of Nikon degenerated in a "mine  is bigger" / "mine is better" CaNikon pissing contest.

My thoughts on it are:
  • Nikon users should root for their brand and hope it survives
  • Non-Nikon users should root for Nikon to survive, strong competing brands are good for everybody, and irrespective if you like or not like them they made their mark in the industry and forced their competition to keep innovating as well.
  • A camera that's best for everybody doesn't exist (despite what some people try to tell you) and while one camera might outscore another one on a lot of parameters if for instance it doesn't fit your hands (and there is no score for that) it can't be the best camera for you. Also given the technological advancements any advantage one camera has is temporary and overtaken by another one in due time.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3690
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #98 on: June 22, 2016, 04:40:43 pm »

I find it amazing that a discussion which started on potential financial trouble of Nikon degenerated in a "mine is bigger" / "mine is better" CaNikon pissing contest.

I don't. Regrettably. In the online world enthusiasm for brand cheerleading often exceedes enthusiasm for taking & enjoying photos.

IMO the more healthy camera/photo systems we have, the better.

-Dave-
Logged

stevesanacore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 265
Re: Nikon in trouble?
« Reply #99 on: June 23, 2016, 03:28:40 pm »

I find it amazing that a discussion which started on potential financial trouble of Nikon degenerated in a "mine  is bigger" / "mine is better" CaNikon pissing contest.

My thoughts on it are:
  • Nikon users should root for their brand and hope it survives
  • Non-Nikon users should root for Nikon to survive, strong competing brands are good for everybody, and irrespective if you like or not like them they made their mark in the industry and forced their competition to keep innovating as well.
  • A camera that's best for everybody doesn't exist (despite what some people try to tell you) and while one camera might outscore another one on a lot of parameters if for instance it doesn't fit your hands (and there is no score for that) it can't be the best camera for you. Also given the technological advancements any advantage one camera has is temporary and overtaken by another one in due time.

I am in total agreement with you. I just can't help myself when people make claims that I know are untrue...... I need to work on that :-)

Steve
Logged
We don't know what we don't know.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up