Quality vs Value

[lattiboy]

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.

[Phat Photographer]

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.

[jjj]

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.

[jjj]

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?

[ErikKaffehr]

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.

[jjj]

Correct! I use my M3 almost every day.

And I prefer to use a better camera. Things have moved on since then.  

[jjj]

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.

[jjj]

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.

[jjj]

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.

[RafalA]

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!

[Slough]

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.

[Yoram from Berlin]

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...

[Ray]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[KevinA]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[springtide]

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.

[pascal]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[jjj]

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!