Quality vs Value

[inissila]

Seriously? All that hot air and disdain over Sony not having any TS lenses and a 400mm f/2.8? Yeah, they should have T/S lenses, but let's face it, that is a seriously niche market and the lenses will cost a tremendous amount of money.

No, my hot air isn't aimed at Sony. I use a lot of their products and the only fault I find from a general consumer's point of view is that their service has an extremely
bad attitude "do what ever you can to make it the customer's fault and responsibility, not ours". I have run into this with a product I purchased last year and I had to
sell it at 70% loss and a great deal of disappointment. They could have solved my problem very easily, but they didn't care to. Nikon service has been the polar opposite, with numerous free repairs of even old equipment done for me, no questions asked.

Nonetheless, my hot air was aimed at Michael who thinks value can be trivialised into "features+image quality of a camera body vs. price" as if words like
"service" and "lens line" etc. are of no value at all. I guess they mean little to people who travel to Antarctica or who update to every new generation of medium format digital back. For those people who actually have to look at the price - the articles are worthless as they display a disregard of the really valuable factors.  

Also, the casual attitude that he displays, taking into account factors and disregarding others on a whim, and the lack of a proper understanding of technology and science just gets to me.

As far as available light portraiture, I guess you haven't heard of the CZ 135 f/1.8  or 85mm f/1.4s?

Of course, these are great lenses. However, I normally do my available light portraits with 50/1.4 type lenses and need good manual
focusability, i.e. true manual focus lenses or AF-S so that the MF adjustment can be easily and secure done when necessitated by the shallow DOF. I currently use 50/1.4 ZF and 50/1.4 AF-S for this, as well as some shorter and longer lenses, most of them manual focus so I can easily position the focus where it needs to be without fiddling with recomposition.

As far as macro I guess you haven't heard of the 50mm and 100mm f/2.8s (and 200mm f/4 KM)? As far as specialty glass, I guess you aren't aware of the millions of Maxxum lenses floating around the world?

Unfortunately there are no stores in my area that stock 2nd hand Sony/Minolta SLR equipment.

I am sure the Minolta macro lenses are great. However, they do not have tilt and so to someone like me who likes to photograph ice formations they would be of limited use.
When you adjust the shooting angle, the composition and reflections from the ice change dramatically. Only by using tilt is it possible to retain sharpness in a sufficient
part of the subject in the majority of situations that I encounter.  The  85mm PC-E Micro-Nikkor serves here amiably. It also works great for landscapes.

Nikon also has the advantage of Zeiss 50mm and 100mm f/2 macro lenses, I have the latter which  is optically  the best lens I have ever had the pleasure to use. Not available for Sony.

And what's this about "losing" the pro user base? I wasn't aware they had lost so many people in the 5 months they've had a "pro" (although it isn't) camera out.

My comment mainly meant them having lost their advanced amateur and pro  users that were once using Minolta 35mm film equipment. They had several pro 35mm bodies on the market (the 9 series), the A900 isn't the first. They waited too long to introduce ultrasonic autofocusing and to produce a competitive digital SLR; everyone had already switched to other brands. The sensor anti-shake is a brilliant invention by Minolta but it's not enough to compensate for the bad attitude displayed by Sony service and the limited lens lineup.

[inissila]

The value vs. quality discussion almost seems like the old film vs. digital arguments, because almost *any* statement you make about it -- including Michael's essay -- is going to be largely wrong, when viewed from an individual perspective (and cameras are used one at a time, not as a mass).

Thank you! I agree 100% with your post. An individual photographer, if they want to do something special with their work, is going to have personal, highly individual needs, which dictate choice of equipment.

[Gary Ferguson]

The medium format data is now up on the DxO website.

When I took a look my initial reaction was a small whoop of "David and Goliath" joy to see the small guy trouncing the big guy! Seriously though, it has to be good news for photography as a whole if cheaper equipment is getting closer and closer to the quality gold standard.

Looking a little closer however I'm more confused than ever! Take the three cameras I use most, a P45+, Canon 5D MkII, and a Canon G10. The total DxO scores are P45+ 77.2, 5D MkII 79.0, and G10 37.8.

Here's my question,

I hear Michael's point that DxO may not be comparing apples with apples because some cameras apply corrections at the RAW conversion stage and some do it on the chip. But here's the thing. DxO give three separate scores, Color Depth, Dynamic range, and Lowlight ISO. The respective scores are P45+ 24.2, 12.9, 622, 5D MkII 23.7, 11.9, 1815, and G10 19.5, 10.0, 157. Michael, does your point apply equally to all three individual scores? Because the lowlight ISO score seems to tie in pretty well with my practical experience, the G10 is awful, the P45+ is better but still seriously wanting, and the 5D MkII is simply in a different league.

[inissila]

I'd pick the A900 first.  My point being, it really depends on the photographers needs.

I fully agree - these are individual decisions and many may find Sony offers features / characteristics that other systems do not have. But in any evaluation of value, an individual component of a system cannot be evaluated without the other parts that a photographer needs being brought into the discussion.

It's good to know that there are Zeiss/Hartblei tilt/shift lenses available. However, they don't focus very close and aren't designed for close-ups/macro, which is where
I need tilt the most; the Nikon 85mm and 45mm PC-E focus down to a magnification of 1:2, and the 24mm to 1:2,7 although the 24mm isn't optimized for close-ups in the
sense that the PC(-E) Micro-Nikkors are.

To me Canon isn't a possibility either, as their viewfinders don't work with my anatomy  so that I could see the whole frame comfortably.

[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

[BJL]

The medium format data is now up on the DxO website...
Take the three cameras I use most, a P45+, Canon 5D MkII, and a Canon G10. The total DxO scores are P45+ 77.2, 5D MkII 79.0, and G10 37.8...

DxO give three separate scores, Color Depth, Dynamic range, and Lowlight ISO. The respective scores are P45+ 24.2, 12.9, 622, 5D MkII 23.7, 11.9, 1815, and G10 19.5, 10.0, 157.

To me the total DxO score is a pointless exercise in pretending that one can reduce a multi-dimensional subject to a single number. Averaging measures of different quantities relies on a weighting of the relative importance of those characteristics, and if this weighting is possible at all, it must vary with the particular user's priorities (or the particular combination of tasks that the user is planning to use the equipment for), not the decree of the testing site.

The various component measures are far more worthwhile, and the results are thoroughly predictable. The P45+ is clearly ahead on dynamic range and its colorized cousin, color depth, while the 5DMkII is way ahead on low light performance. Meanwhile the compact is last in all three listed categories, but way ahead in the absent but sometimes important categories of bulk and price.

[douglasf13]

I figure that I'll just go buy two G10s. That'll put me right under the P45+ on DxO Mark at 75.6  

[01af]

I took a shot [...] I used a Sony A900 with a SAL 135 mm ZA and on the other a Phase One P30 on a Mamiya 645 with an AF 150 mm lens [...]. Both shot at f/8 under studio strobes. Processed with the best-possible raw converter that could extract the most of acuity for each file and sharpened to taste until they looked at their best. [...]

I printed on an Canon Pixma Pro 9500 on glossy tabloid-size paper [...] the two art directors picked the print from the Phase One back on a matter of few seconds without even looking too close. [...] They simply said something on the line of "this print has more crispiness and somehow more life and better nuances than the other one." That is pretty much what I also saw when the prints popped out from my printer as well. They were very close, colors were pretty similar, yet there was something in one print that the other did not have.

And this is exactly the kind of difference that you would see when doing the same experiment with one darkroom print made from the finest 35-mm film camera and another darkroom print of the same subject shot with a high-end medium-format film camera. Size matters! Regarding sheer image quality, there is nothing that can replace image format ... except more image format. This used to be true 30 or 100 years ago, and it still is true today. Analog vs digital hasn't changed anything in this regard.

So no matter how good APS-C-format or 35-mm full-frame DSLR cameras eventually will become---based on the same overall level of technology, medium-format digital backs (or the upcoming Leica S2 30 × 45 mm format) always will be a few notches ahead.

For the individual photographer however (particularly the hobbyists) the question always was, and will always be: what's good enough for me, and what am I willing to spend? Today's 35-mm full-frame DSLR cameras are clearly better than medium-format roll film ever used to be---and that's damn good for sure. In the past, most demanding, or 'ambitious,' hobbyists were happy with less.

... the latest Photo Techniques magazine has a good article about the relationship between diffraction and pixel pitch.

As a matter of fact, there is no relation between diffraction and pixel pitch. Instead, there is a relation between diffraction and image format: the smaller the format, the higher the influence of diffraction on image quality. Contrary to common belief, pixel pitch has nothing to do with it.

It is similar to what Michael R. mentioned in his latest article, 'Eyes vs Numbers.' Just like different (high and very high) film resolutions will show through on low-resolution printing paper, diffraction blur will show through in the final image even when the sensor's pixel pitch was wider than the diffraction's Airy disk's diameter. Or the quality and character of a high-end stereo amplifier will show through even with a pair of cheap low-end speakers.

-- Olaf

[JohnKoerner]

I would like to illustrate that even in my own recent modest purchase of a Canon 50D + 100 macro the difference in value is clear:



Canon 50D = $1,100
Canon 100 mm macro = $490
TOTAL PRICE = $1,590


By comparison, if I were to order the comparable setup from Nikon, it would have cost me the following:


Nikon D300 = $1,490
Micro Nikkor 105 mm = $800
TOTAL PRICE = $2,290



Just with these two items, that is a $700 difference in price. That $700 "price difference" of the Canon product line allowed me the luxury to include the following "extra" for my Canon system: the Canon Macro MT-24EX Ringlight Flash which is $685. In other words I get the Canon body, the 100 mm macro, and Canon's best MT-24 macro ringlight flash for $15 less than what Nikon offers in just the back and the lens with its system.

So I absolutely agree, it's not just the back, it's the entire system that one must consider as having value to one's own needs and budget. And with the addition of Canon's stellar MT-24 ringlight flash to its already wonderful 100 mm macro ... all attached at the end of the 50D ... for less expense than the comparable Nikon withOUT any ringlight flash ... only someone not very honest with themselves can't admit that the Canon system offers, by far, the better value for the money.

And when you pull out your calculator, and start adding things up, no matter how you slice it and no matter what system you try to put together, the Canon system will offer you more options, top caliber optics, all for less money out of your pocket, than any other system being offered at this time. Pull out your calculators and piece "your needs" together and see if this doesn't ring true, time and again.

Yes, there are a certain few Nikkor lenses that come higher in quality ... and maybe during this brief moment in time the D3x offers slightly better resolution/ISO performance ... but as an overall value (which is the subject of this thread) the Nikon system falls woefully short, ultimately offering you less product for more money, time and again.

I would like to add that if it were the Nikon system that offered me the best value for my needs, and got me more wonderful products for my money, that I would be a Nikon owner instead. It is not "the name" I am buying, but the combination of performance/value. But choosing Nikon would have meant my money would have left my wallet much faster, and that to enjoy a variety of options in my photography would have come much slower, and there is no way around this FACT. And I simply go limp at such a prospect: my wallet empties quickly but my bag fills slowly. For some reason I find that deflating. For some reason I can't call that "value."

With Canon, my wallet doesn't get empty as quickly, but yet my bag fills up with neat and very capable options much faster. And that pumps me up. That is simply the very definition of "value." Again, pull out your own calculators, wherever you live, and this truth will always pan out in the end, time and again.

Jack


.

[douglasf13]

The problem there is that Canon and Nikon fit models between each other, so it's hard to directly compare. You could go with the D90 to save more.  Plus, that 105 macro has IS. You should try pricing an A700 and Sony 100 macro, as that is more direct competition, price and feature wise.

[nsnowlin]

All will be revealed in good time.

Michael

Wasn't that the line of the former governor of Illinois who claimed that the testimony of the angels and the Mother of God (he could have added Goldilocks and the three bears) would establish the purity of his character?

Isn't part of IQ composition & design, sometimes abstraction, sometimes as worldly as a scene of church officials counting the Sunday take on the break room table while watching a Green Bay Packers game?  Aren't some of our most important concerns keeping the viewer's gaze within the canvas, to carry our viewers to the edge of every element in the image and not let them out?  Beethoven does not let the listener dream.  Ansel Adams gives order, proportion and dazzling composition within the nobility of silver.  Delicate, sensitive and mysteriously compelling images that just happen to also have considerable IQ.  Some lines were diminished since they were esthetically irrelevant.  He delivers prints that shine like essences.  Even their presentation and display are forms of metaphor.

Some of my best work (and largest print sizes) is with Painter X, an 8-bit program.  It is shot with professional gear simply because that gear is sometimes treated like a police department mag light.  My 1D3 & 1Ds3 always get the shots.  Cost is not much of an issue since I write it off my taxes anyway.  Reliability is an issue.  I cannot convey this particular passage of light, the shadow on the extended arm, the meticulous but fantastic portraits (and not some pretty Mom & baby that is no better than images gracing the plastic wrap on toilet paper) or the industrial landscape of wintry grime that is still, somehow, even if beleagured, awesome and human if my camera does not work or cannot capture the particular dynamic range of the scene.

Stu

[RafalA]

With Canon, my wallet doesn't get empty as quickly, but yet my bag fills up with neat and very capable options much faster. And pumps me up. That is simply the very definition of "value." Again, pull out your own calculators, wherever you live, and this truth will always pan out in the end, time and again.

I think you are putting too much of an absolute on price. Value is a combination of price and performance, among other factors, and the only one with a clear number attached to it is price. Further, you seem hellbent on showing that Canon is better than Nikon at everything, which is clearly not the case.

When Nikon released the 14-24mm, they turned the ultra-wide world around by showing that a zoom could outperform even prime lenses in what are commonly acknowledged to be difficult focal lengths to design well. And they did so at a (relatively) incredibly low price point.

Nikon D3x: 8000
Nikon 24-70: 1700
Nikon 14-24: 1580
Total: 11280

Canon 1DsIII: 6550
Canon 24-70: 1265
Canon 14mm II: 2020
Canon 16-35 II: 1450
Total: 11285

With equivalent focal length coverage from 14mm to 70mm on FF, 20MP+ cameras, the two system costs even out. Actually, the Nikon is ahead as there's one less lens to carry, it has more resolution and it's $5 cheaper. And, as many have observed, at this time it produces the best images from a DSLR camera at any price point. Not to mention that 14-24, which many Canon shooters use on their 1DsIII's.

Here, the value is with the Nikon system, despite the oft derided $8000 price tag of the D3x. Price, while a convenient number we can factor into the value of a system, is not the penultimate decider you make it out to be. It is, as all the other attributes, a subjective and personal factor but one that cannot be blindly added up.

[Ray]

Or the quality and character of a high-end stereo amplifier will show through even with a pair of cheap low-end speakers.

-- Olaf

I'm very skeptical of this claim. Can you point to any double blind tests? I no longer fuss about hi fi matters, but I used to. The impression I got was that high-end amplifiers are largely a con, or to put it more politely, they have a placebo effect on the gullible. When listeners are removed from the comforting knowledge of which amplifier is in use, during controlled tests, they are generally unable to distinguish between amplifiers that vary wildly in price. The exception might be the valve amplifiers where second order harmonic distortion is actually added (or is not removed). The specs tell you that the distortion should be audible, and it is audible. There's no contradiction there. It's just that the distortion can be musical in its own right.

[JohnKoerner]

The problem there is that Canon and Nikon fit models between each other, so it's hard to directly compare. You could go with the D90 to save more.  Plus, that 105 macro has IS. You should try pricing an A700 and Sony 100 macro, as that is more direct competition, price and feature wise.

I disagree, but I do see your point. I think you can directly compare, factor-in the little differences, and see whether the differences/price points benefit you or not.

With the Nikon, the extra dimensions that "IS" give me to macrophotography are minimal compared to the extra dimensions a fully-functional ringlight flash offers me. I could also get a top-end tripod for the extra $700 price difference that would add more stability for shooting also. But with a ringlight flash, that automatically allows me to default to 250 and the system adjusts the rest, my ability to hand-hold and get sharper shots is 100x better than "IS" and no ringlight, especially in nighttime.

And if I compare the Sony product, it is almost pitiful. Their A700 is $1,500, their 100 mm macro is $640, and the system has no macro ringlight product at all ... and I have to pay $2,140 for this. So again, I see the advantage go to purchasing Canon. If I purchase the equivalent in the 50D and 100 mm, I save $550, and I have a better camera and a better lens.

With the Nikon, the quality difference is more of a toss-up, but there is no question that saving $700 with Canon gives me the better value, so much so that I can add the best ringlight flash in the industry to my macro set-up and still save $15 over the Nikon w/ no ringlight flash.

Jack




.

[Ray]

Here, the value is with the Nikon system, despite the oft derided $8000 price tag of the D3x. Price, while a convenient number we can factor into the value of a system, is not the penultimate decider you make it out to be. It is, as all the other attributes, a subjective and personal factor but one that cannot be blindly added up.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if all interchangeable lenses could be attached to any brand of DSLR and remain fully functional. We could then have the best of both worlds and the public would be truly well served.  

[springtide]

I think you are putting too much of an absolute on price. Value is a combination of price and performance, among other factors, and the only one with a clear number attached to it is price. Further, you seem hellbent on showing that Canon is better than Nikon at everything, which is clearly not the case.

When Nikon released the 14-24mm, they turned the ultra-wide world around by showing that a zoom could outperform even prime lenses in what are commonly acknowledged to be difficult focal lengths to design well. And they did so at a (relatively) incredibly low price point.

Nikon D3x: 8000
Nikon 24-70: 1700
Nikon 14-24: 1580
Total: 11280

Canon 1DsIII: 6550
Canon 24-70: 1265
Canon 14mm II: 2020
Canon 16-35 II: 1450
Total: 11285

With equivalent focal length coverage from 14mm to 70mm on FF, 20MP+ cameras, the two system costs even out. Actually, the Nikon is ahead as there's one less lens to carry, it has more resolution and it's $5 cheaper. And, as many have observed, at this time it produces the best images from a DSLR camera at any price point. Not to mention that 14-24, which many Canon shooters use on their 1DsIII's.

Here, the value is with the Nikon system, despite the oft derided $8000 price tag of the D3x. Price, while a convenient number we can factor into the value of a system, is not the penultimate decider you make it out to be. It is, as all the other attributes, a subjective and personal factor but one that cannot be blindly added up.

Not that I really want to get involved this Canon vs Nikon debate, but is it just me or have you just added an additional prime to the Canon list?

If you really are trying to compare ‘Apples to Apples’ then maybe you should have picked the lenses that actually match both systems.  i.e.  instead of the Nikon 12-24, why not the 17-35 f2.8?

I’m sure you are just trying to prove some point here about the value of the Nikon 12-24, but I’m sure the Canon guy will be able to talk about lenses within the Canon camp which are not available in the Nikon range (Canon MP-E, 17-35 L f4, 24-104 f4 L, 70-200 f4 etc)

I'm not backing Canon here, neither am I backing Nikon.  I own a Sony, and yes Ringlights are available - either 3rd party or on the secondhand market - maybe not ideal, but it's not ideal Nikon doesn't have a f4 zoom range, it's not ideal that Canon's AF isn't considered as good as the Nikon... etc.

There will be no conclusion to this discussion, just wasted hours posting about theoretical prices of gear.

[lattiboy]

And if I compare the Sony product, it is almost pitiful. Their A700 is $1,500, their 100 mm macro is $640, and the system has no macro ringlight product at all ... and I have to pay $2,140 for this. So again, I see the advantage go to purchasing Canon. If I purchase the equivalent in the 50D and 100 mm, I save $550, and I have a better camera and a better lens.

The A700 is $1000, not $1500.

I am quite happy you are so happy with your setup (and your point about the lack of Sony ringflash is correct), but please stop with the "everything sucks but Canon" FUD. It's unbecoming.

[JohnKoerner]

I think you are putting too much of an absolute on price. Value is a combination of price and performance, among other factors, and the only one with a clear number attached to it is price. Further, you seem hellbent on showing that Canon is better than Nikon at everything, which is clearly not the case.

This is not so. I said the difference in price AND performance in my rant, and Canon does offer better price and performance than Nikon. That Nikon may have a lens or two, and one body, that performs better than Canon still is offset by its much higher price across the board.

When Nikon released the 14-24mm, they turned the ultra-wide world around by showing that a zoom could outperform even prime lenses in what are commonly acknowledged to be difficult focal lengths to design well. And they did so at a (relatively) incredibly low price point.

I agree, that is a single great lens. But everything else from Nikon is more money w/o being so great in difference. If I were a pro photographer making 40" landscapes for a living, I might have to dig deeper and get this lens and the D3x, but I am not. I like the long-end of a zoom, and the close-up of macro, and the Canon system offers by far the better macro and telephoto products, and for a lot less money too.

Nikon D3x: 8000
Nikon 24-70: 1700
Nikon 14-24: 1580
Total: 11280

Canon 1DsIII: 6550
Canon 24-70: 1265
Canon 14mm II: 2020
Canon 16-35 II: 1450
Total: 11285

With equivalent focal length coverage from 14mm to 70mm on FF, 20MP+ cameras, the two system costs even out. Actually, the Nikon is ahead as there's one less lens to carry, it has more resolution and it's $5 cheaper. And, as many have observed, at this time it produces the best images from a DSLR camera at any price point. Not to mention that 14-24, which many Canon shooters use on their 1DsIII's.

Good example. Within the context of these limited ranges, I do agree Nikon equals the Canon in value. Perhaps surpasses them with those particular lenses. However, if I wanted to add macro lenses/equipment to my bag, and/or telephoto lenses/equipment also, Canon pulls ahead in value by a country mile. If Nikon were equal-to (or offered more) for less in its complete system, then I would say its system has to be considered the greatest value. However, when a full system is built, it ultimately costs several thousand dollars more to go the Nikon route, which makes the Canon system the overall greater value for the money.

Here, the value is with the Nikon system, despite the oft derided $8000 price tag of the D3x. Price, while a convenient number we can factor into the value of a system, is not the penultimate decider you make it out to be. It is, as all the other attributes, a subjective and personal factor but one that cannot be blindly added up.

I didn't blindly add-up anything; you selectively looked at but a fraction of each manufacturer's offerings. In truth, if you put together a complete system ... from pro macro, to pro wide-angle, to pro standard portrait, to pro telephoto ... you can do a whole lot more with a Canon system for a whole lot less money out of your pocket. If your particular needs only involve a limited range of each company's offerings, as the one you articulated, then I do agree Nikon offers better quality for even money.

But if a person wants to eventually build a whole camera system, then Canon ultimately offers equal-to (and in most cases superior quality), as well as BY FAR more creative options, for thousands of dollars less spent.

Jack



.

[JohnKoerner]

The A700 is $1000, not $1500.
I am quite happy you are so happy with your setup (and your point about the lack of Sony ringflash is correct), but please stop with the "everything sucks but Canon" FUD. It's unbecoming.

What is unbecoming is your perversion of what I have said.

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

Since the subject of this thread is VALUE, I do believe my points are relevent to the discussion, unlike your crying over the truth.

Sony costs more than Canon and offers no ringlight. Nikon costs over $1200 more than Canon to include its ringlight.

These are the facts as they pertain to "value for the money," and they are indisputable.

Jack

[Ray]

If you really are trying to compare ‘Apples to Apples’ then maybe you should have picked the lenses that actually match both systems.  i.e.  instead of the Nikon 12-24, why not the 17-35 f2.8?

This is why.  

[attachment=11350:Nikkor_14_24_PZ.jpg]

14mm is also significantly wider than 17mm.