Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Quality vs Value  (Read 39732 times)
Er1kksen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #220 on: February 07, 2009, 06:23:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm kind of curious about the complete lack of attention given to any DLSR brands besides the "Top 3." On the entry-level end, I've found that Olympus provides some of the best value for the features available, especially their 2-lens kits, which often go for the price of competitor's single-lens kits. For a semipro landscape or portrait shooter who's more concerned with raw image quality than speed, the Pentax K20D looks like the best choice, with image quality equal to or exceeding the faster-operating canon, nikon, olympus, and sony semipro models (that samsung sensor is a real work of art) while costing only about $750 and sealed like a pro-level offering (I'm actually expecting to pay under $700 for a new one soon). Given its suite of photographer-oriented features, I suspect it's the kind of camera Michael would enjoy having a little time to work with, and maybe he'd appreciate the magic of those all-metal limited primes as well.

I'm on a pretty low budget, personally, so even without the economic situation I have to be value-minded, and I've found that often the value is less plentiful under those flashy top-brand logos. Or I could just be shooting a plasticy xSi with the mediocre kit lens for the same price as my K20D setup. Up until where it shorts out in a sudden rain (interesting weather conditions are among my favorite subjects). Heck, even the pentax K200D has a similar level of sealing to other maker's pro cameras, and at about $540 new it's a highly competitive upper-entry level shooter. In an article about value that devotes paragraphs to cameras costing over $2000, you'd think some of these options would at least get a mention. Oh well, perhaps in future articles. And if it's a question of the products discussed being more "pro" oriented, french fashion photographer Benjamin Kanarek, formerly sponsored by Canon, currently uses and prefers the K20D and pentax glass to the 1Ds ii bodies he used to use, even going so far as to declare the image quality from the 14mp APS-C sensor visibly superior to the results he got from the 16mp FF canon sensor. Something tells me that this is a camera that certainly deserves as much "pro" level consideration as a 40D.

I'm not trying to start an argument or brand-war here, or be mindlessly critical of Michael, as I really enjoy his articles and find them to be some of the saner commentary of photographic gear available on the web today. But it would make a sense to mention some of the other options, especially those that a large portion of your audience who can't afford most of the gear you write about may find more suitable.

And I really think you would have fun trying out a K20D and maybe an FA77 or DA40mm as a walkaround.
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #221 on: February 08, 2009, 04:28:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I think people in the UK ignore Pentax because lenses are hard obtain (many shops do not stock any and those that do stock a limited range), and the bodies are rather limited e.g. no Nikon D700 equivalent. It is a shame as they used to be one of the great Japanese camera makers.

Regarding Olympus, I suspect micro 4/3 will sell quite well. The idea of a small digital camera with a largish sensor and high quality lenses (it can even accept Leica with an adapter) appeals. IMO it could be the modern equivalent of the Leica rangefinder (though having no experience with the latter I might be talking nonsense).
Logged
Er1kksen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #222 on: February 08, 2009, 10:06:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
I think people in the UK ignore Pentax because lenses are hard obtain (many shops do not stock any and those that do stock a limited range), and the bodies are rather limited e.g. no Nikon D700 equivalent. It is a shame as they used to be one of the great Japanese camera makers.

Availability (and marketing) really are, I think, their biggest problems. Fortunately, under their recent acquisition by Hoya, the brand is supposed to be "relaunching itself as a maker of tough, weather-resistant and compact products for active outdoor photography." I'm looking forward to whatever products that philosophy produces, and hoping that it might also be accompanied by a greater push into stores and some creative new marketing. They've been getting a little better distribution-wise with the K-m, but there are camera stores in my area that don't even carry pentax point-and-shoots.

Oddly, in France they seem to have a ridiculously high DSLR market share. I have no idea why.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #223 on: February 08, 2009, 12:55:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: douglasf13
Jack, I forgot to mention that there have been some pretty strong rumors that Sony has an all new, Sony/Zeiss 200mm macro lens coming, which may peak your interest a little bit, although Im sure that sucker won't be cheap.  Regardless, I think you're right that Sony has the possibility of bringing a down. On the opposite end of the spectrum from my A900, Sony has an A200 which is very good and very cheap, and it outspecs the Nikons in it's price range (lenses not withstanding.)

Heh heh, I had commented on that in an earlier part of this thread.

It actually brings up the issue of "quality versus value" yet again, but from an opposite end. Generally, it is best to get "the most you can get for the least money spent," and that has been the central theme here. However, if a particular lens (or camera) is so good, in such a unique way, that directly reflects your own personal passions in such an extreme way, than buying that piece (even if it means spending more money) will represent the best "value" to you. For instance, while many have posted "Nikon is on crack" regarding the D3x, it is clear our friend Bernard has been in blissful heaven ever since he purchased his copy

The value that this camera represents to him, for his particular photography, was clear.

I myself chose Canon because I get more of what I want, for less money spent ... but when it comes to my particular passion of macrophotography, and when I opt to move up to a 200 mm macro, you can pretty much bet your last dollar that I too will be spending the extra $$$ on the Zeiss 200mm, because the value of this particular piece of glass will affect my own personal passion for macro profoundly enough to justify the extra expense. I didn't get their 100mm, because it wasn't a true 1:1, but I will most defnitely dig a little deeper in my own pockets, because the value of the what a Zeiss-caliber 200 mm macro can do for my own deepest interest in photography will justify the extra expense, in that instance.

For telephoto, Canon already is the leader. For 5:1, Canon is already the leader. For the smaller macro lenses, Canon already offers top caliber for the least money. For wides, it is not a deep enough passion for me to justify going Nikon or Zeiss, so I can pass on these lenses and be satisfied with the 10-22mm Canon.




>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>




Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,
I see your point. I'd just add that I essentially always carry two bodies, just in case a body would fail. Having a cross platform mix you would not be able most of your lenses on the backup body if your main camera failed.
I'm also somewhat skeptical about all this discussion about value. Most of us have a lot of legacy stuff and you simply go on with what you happen to have, this may admittedly not always the smartest. IMHO there is also a bit to much Canon bashing for wide angles, it seems to be true that none of the full frame Canon extreme wides are top notch, but Nikon has also only one top notch lens, the 14-24/2.8 and before the D3x no really demanding camera to put it on. AFAIK the Canon 10-22 is a very good lens and so is the 24-105/4.
Best regards
Erik Kaffehr

Actually, I was thinking about this yesterday as I was driving up to South Carolina. The 10-22 mm option was the final icing on the cake that made me buy the 50D. I do not particularly think about wide-angle shooting much, but it would still be something I would like to be able to do well if I had the occasion to do so. The new Photozone review on this lens on a 50D, as well as Michael's own here on this site, pretty much was unanimous that the 10-22 mm was an excellent wide lens, especially for the money. I believe Michael said something like, "I would not hesitate to use this lens for any professional application." So that's good enough for me.

So while there are some wides that are better, to me the difference isn't worth the added expense. To someone else, who competes with other professionals, and whose livelihood depends on wides, it might be worth that extra expense. Still, there are plenty of pros who use the 10-22 successfully, so the fact I can pick one of those up and put it on the end of my 50D for only $700 adds to the value of why I chose my own system.




>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>




Quote from: Slough
Maybe once you have taken some photos with a DSLR and macro lenses you will understand some of the points I made. Until then I don't think you know what you are talking about.

What I understand, after reading your posts, is that you are still a little sore at me over my comments about your photo. Honestly, it is unbecoming for a full-grown man to hold a grudge over something this trivial.

Regarding this subject here of value and product comparisons, I actually have taken many, many, many macro photos. I also feel qualified to discuss the subject of "value for the money," as I have been shopping, pricing, and comparing lenses and product systems for almost 2 years now. I finally made a purchase decision just over a month ago precisely based on this value for the money issue. So almost all of these considerations are fresh on my mind, much more so that some pro who bought his system 4 years ago. Naturally, as has been discussed, "my" value system decision was predicated on the type of photography I am most interested in, so it might not apply to others' purposes.

Therefore, I am not "having trouble" understanding your points, you are simply wrong in all your points. The Canon macro system equals, is comparable to, or surpasses the Nikon macro system, on every level, and does so for far less expense. The only exception would perhaps be the 180 mm vs. 200 mm, where the prices are about equal, but where the Nikkor lens is considered noticeably superior. But, here again, I am going to ignore both companies' offerings and in all probability go with the Zeiss. However, I have also heard rumors of Canon coming out with a 180mm MkII ... so we will see ... but right now my 100mm lens is simply wonderful and fulfills my purposes perfectly, and it succeeds in doing so for less money than any other offering by any other company.

It is you who needs understand that the Canon 100 mm macro is almost universally-regarded as the best value in 100mm macro photography, offering terrific AF, outstanding sharpness, and superb bokeh for less than $450-$490.

In closing, I am sorry if my comments about your photo hurt your feelings that bad.




>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>




Quote from: Panopeeper
I don't know why you felt this condescending post was necessary. John has posted numerous times from his makro shots, made with DSLR; where are yours?

Gabor, I think he posted one awhile back that I wasn't impressed with, so apparently he is still wounded and holding a grudge ...

Jack




.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2009, 01:00:51 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #224 on: February 08, 2009, 01:51:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
Regarding this subject here of value and product comparisons, I actually have taken many, many, many macro photos. I also feel qualified to discuss the subject of "value for the money," as I have been shopping, pricing, and comparing lenses and product systems for almost 2 years now. I finally made a purchase decision just over a month ago precisely based on this value for the money issue. So almost all of these considerations are fresh on my mind, much more so that some pro who bought his system 4 years ago. Naturally, as has been discussed, "my" value system decision was predicated on the type of photography I am most interested in, so it might not apply to others' purposes.

Therefore, I am not "having trouble" understanding your points, you are simply wrong in all your points. The Canon macro system equals, is comparable to, or surpasses the Nikon macro system, on every level, and does so for far less expense. The only exception would perhaps be the 180 mm vs. 200 mm, where the prices are about equal, but where the Nikkor lens is considered noticeably superior. But, here again, I am going to ignore both companies' offerings and in all probability go with the Zeiss. However, I have also heard rumors of Canon coming out with a 180mm MkII ... so we will see ... but right now my 100mm lens is simply wonderful and fulfills my purposes perfectly, and it succeeds in doing so for less money than any other offering by any other company.

" you are simply wrong in all your points"

Bullshit.

Of course the Canon system is excellent, and the 100mm macro is widely respected. But if you seriously think that I am completely wrong then you are an ignorant fool.

Could you answer these questions?

1) Can you set the true aperture on a Canon 'macro' lens?
2) Can you reverse a Canon 28mm wide angle and get a 2:1 macro lens? Or reverse a zoom, and get a variable magnification macro lens? Can you reverse any Canon lens?
3) Can you mount a Canon lens on the front of another Canon lens for true macro work?
4) How much does it cost to buy a bellows unit to work with a Canon lens?
5) Does the Canon 50mm macro lens go to 1:1? (The answer is no. So to go to 1:1 you need tubes, and you get a large loss in light.) My understanding, rightly or wrongly, is that this lens is no great performer.

I can do all of the above with my Nikon system at low cost. The equation of what constitutes value is not as simple as you would have us believe.  

The system you chose may well be best for you, but to say that Canon 'macro' is superior or better value than Nikon is pure nonsense. That is the sort of sweeping statement that is at best crass. In fact the only gem in the Canon 'macro' system is the 100mm macro lens. Canon have a much smaller range, and with the exception of the 100mm the performance is nothing to write home about.

Ah yes, and maybe you could explain how you engage mirror lock up on your camera. You do use that I presume?
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #225 on: February 08, 2009, 01:53:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
Gabor, I think he posted one awhile back that I wasn't impressed with, so apparently he is still wounded and holding a grudge ...

You delude yourself. But if you use 'direct' language, don't be surprised if others return the favour.
Logged
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 580



WWW
« Reply #226 on: February 08, 2009, 02:34:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Somehow some posts in this thread made me think of this cartoon I saw some time ago

« Last Edit: February 08, 2009, 02:35:18 PM by pegelli » Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
Slough
Guest
« Reply #227 on: February 08, 2009, 02:41:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pegelli
Somehow some posts in this thread made me think of this cartoon I saw some time ago


That drawing is ancient.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2009, 02:42:10 PM by Slough » Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #228 on: February 08, 2009, 03:29:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
That drawing is ancient.

Still applicable though.

I stopped reading this thread pages ago, and that despite numerous posters being on my "Ignore User" list.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4731



« Reply #229 on: February 08, 2009, 03:58:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Time to close this particular thread.

Michael

Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad