Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Quality vs Value  (Read 66628 times)

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Quality vs Value
« Reply #180 on: February 05, 2009, 09:39:46 am »

Quote from: Ray
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.  
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

RafalA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
    • http://www.rafalandronowski.com
Quality vs Value
« Reply #181 on: February 05, 2009, 12:05:35 pm »

Quote from: jjj
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? :-)
« Last Edit: February 05, 2009, 12:06:07 pm by RafalA »
Logged

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Quality vs Value
« Reply #182 on: February 05, 2009, 03:39:41 pm »

Quote
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?    

Quote
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.  

Quote
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...

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2009, 03:42:47 pm by Plekto »
Logged

aaykay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 359
Quality vs Value
« Reply #183 on: February 05, 2009, 04:29:47 pm »

Quote from: 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.

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.




Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Quality vs Value
« Reply #184 on: February 05, 2009, 05:39:26 pm »

Deleted
« Last Edit: February 05, 2009, 05:55:33 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Quality vs Value
« Reply #185 on: February 05, 2009, 05:54:18 pm »

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


Quote from: aaykay
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.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Quality vs Value
« Reply #186 on: February 05, 2009, 06:00:28 pm »

Hi!

Just buy Canon and be happy! Let those who prefer other makes spend their money they way prefer.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Plekto
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.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

springtide

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Quality vs Value
« Reply #187 on: February 05, 2009, 06:31:54 pm »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
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!
Logged

Jeff Hill

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Quality vs Value
« Reply #188 on: February 05, 2009, 06:39:12 pm »

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
Logged

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Quality vs Value
« Reply #189 on: February 05, 2009, 07:20:23 pm »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
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...
Logged

VinceB

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
    • Frozen Light Photo
Quality vs Value
« Reply #190 on: February 05, 2009, 09:21:42 pm »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
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)
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13924
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Quality vs Value
« Reply #191 on: February 05, 2009, 09:56:11 pm »

Quote from: VinceB
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

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Quality vs Value
« Reply #192 on: February 06, 2009, 01:45:55 am »

Quote from: JohnKoerner
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
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13924
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Quality vs Value
« Reply #193 on: February 06, 2009, 02:29:56 am »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
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

Slough

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #194 on: February 06, 2009, 03:20:03 am »

Quote from: Plekto
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.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2009, 03:20:27 am by Slough »
Logged

springtide

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Quality vs Value
« Reply #195 on: February 06, 2009, 04:29:56 am »

Quote from: Slough
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
« Last Edit: February 06, 2009, 04:42:26 am by springtide »
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #196 on: February 06, 2009, 06:20:13 am »

Quote from: springtide
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.
Logged

springtide

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Quality vs Value
« Reply #197 on: February 06, 2009, 06:28:35 am »

Quote from: Slough
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!
« Last Edit: February 06, 2009, 06:32:07 am by springtide »
Logged

Frank Dernie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Quality vs Value
« Reply #198 on: February 06, 2009, 07:08:56 am »

Quote from: NikosR
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.
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Quality vs Value
« Reply #199 on: February 06, 2009, 10:06:26 am »

Quote from: springtide
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.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12   Go Up