Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Quality vs Value  (Read 68320 times)

springtide

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Quality vs Value
« Reply #100 on: February 03, 2009, 11:58:49 am »

Quote from: Ray
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.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2009, 12:06:31 pm by springtide »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Quality vs Value
« Reply #101 on: February 03, 2009, 12:29:15 pm »

Quote from: springtide
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.
Logged

01af

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 296
Quality vs Value
« Reply #102 on: February 03, 2009, 12:37:12 pm »

Have I missed something, or is this my-camera-is-cheaper-than-your-camera ranting a new twist to fanboyism?

-- Olaf
Logged

NikosR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 622
    • http://
Quality vs Value
« Reply #103 on: February 03, 2009, 12:42:28 pm »

Quote from: springtide
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.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2009, 12:43:17 pm by NikosR »
Logged
Nikos

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #104 on: February 03, 2009, 12:59:06 pm »

Quote from: 01af
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


.
Logged

springtide

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Quality vs Value
« Reply #105 on: February 03, 2009, 01:05:03 pm »

Quote from: 01af
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.'


Quote from: NikosR
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'.
Logged

inissila

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
Quality vs Value
« Reply #106 on: February 03, 2009, 02:06:07 pm »

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.
Logged

lattiboy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 41
Quality vs Value
« Reply #107 on: February 03, 2009, 02:09:28 pm »

Quote from: JohnKoerner
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.
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2171
Quality vs Value
« Reply #108 on: February 03, 2009, 02:28:45 pm »

Quote from: michael
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
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #109 on: February 03, 2009, 02:28:56 pm »

Quote from: JohnKoerner
I never said "everything sucks" but Canon; I said everyone else offers LESS PRODUCT for "more money" than Canon, and that is a fact.

 

Quote from: JohnKoerner
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 ...
Logged

inissila

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
Quality vs Value
« Reply #110 on: February 03, 2009, 02:46:13 pm »

Quote
The reason is simple – I like the way they handle.

This is a perfectly reasonable and a 100% subjective reason to prefer them.


Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2009, 02:50:33 pm by inissila »
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Quality vs Value
« Reply #111 on: February 03, 2009, 03:31:53 pm »

Quote from: JohnKoerner
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

Sony HVL-MT24AM Macro Twin Flash Kit
Logged
Phil Brown

springtide

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Quality vs Value
« Reply #112 on: February 03, 2009, 04:05:12 pm »


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.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.
Logged

frugal

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 73
    • http://www.andrewdaceyphotography.com/
Quality vs Value
« Reply #113 on: February 03, 2009, 05:09:24 pm »

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?"
Logged

250swb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
Quality vs Value
« Reply #114 on: February 03, 2009, 05:16:06 pm »

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

JohnKoerner

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #115 on: February 03, 2009, 05:23:17 pm »

Quote from: lattiboy
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.





Quote from: lattiboy
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.




Quote from: lattiboy
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.




Quote from: lattiboy
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.




Quote from: lattiboy
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.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2009, 05:30:15 pm by JohnKoerner »
Logged

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Quality vs Value
« Reply #116 on: February 03, 2009, 05:25:54 pm »

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
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
Oh wait - things got murkier when you add in the other manufacturers...


http://kievcamera.net/catalog/product_info...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
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.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2009, 05:31:23 pm by Plekto »
Logged

inissila

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 36
Quality vs Value
« Reply #117 on: February 03, 2009, 05:28:49 pm »

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2009, 05:32:17 pm by inissila »
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Quality vs Value
« Reply #118 on: February 03, 2009, 05:41:39 pm »

Quote from: JohnKoerner
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.
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Quality vs Value
« Reply #119 on: February 03, 2009, 05:46:01 pm »

Inissilla, there is no competable lens to the STF from any system. Truly unique.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 12   Go Up