NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: dibyendumajumdar on February 29, 2016, 01:03:46
-
Hi
Sharing some thoughts here ... apologies in advance as it is really me thinking aloud.
I bought the D4 in 2012 as I wanted to own the best. At the time I was also considering Canon's 5D Mark III - as it would have suited me better but the price was simply unjustifiable for what it was.
Re the D4 - I was happy generally but for following issues:
a) I could not get it to track my little dog running around the garden. I think it doesn't handle small subjects very well. With human subjects tracking appears to be better.
b) I hated the fact that after D4s came out Nikon just forgot about the D4 users, and did not issue any real firmware upgrades. For an expensive camera that is not good practice I think , especially from Nikon who were famed for long time support of their professional models in the days of film cameras.
c) A firmware upgrade caused the main board to fail, and Nikon service would only repair it for a charge despite camera being in warranty as apparently all firmware upgrades are at user risk.
So I have now put up my D4 for sale and am thinking about what to replace it with.
Logically something like Canon 5D Mark III fits me best (i.e. I don't want or need 36+ megapixels, but do want features / form factor from the pro-grade SLRs). But given that 5D Mark III is soon to be replaced it makes sense to wait for the next revision. Nikon's D5 is the easier option because of course of my investment in Nikon lenses etc. - most of my camera gear is Nikon. But I am not sure that Nikon is the best brand anymore. Nikon is likely to issue a D5s to fix issues in D5 rather than supporting the D5. Canon EOS 1DX Mark II is also an option - but then I will be left with no money to buy Canon lenses. I have also thought about getting a relatively cheaper Nikon full frame (like D750) to allow me to use my existing Nikon glass but gradually move to either Canon or Leica.
The logical and rational part of me says that actually I could just have continued to use D4 as it is a fine camera. But the irrational part of me wants the latest and greatest .... and life cannot be all rational and everyone is allowed one indulgence.
Do you think that Nikon is no longer the greatest camera / lens maker (if it ever was)? I'd be interested to know your views.
Regards
Dibyendu
-
It doesn't work that way and nobody except yourself can provide the relevant answer. There are several big systems available.
Focusing issues can be tricky for the user and buying another camera or switching to another brand to solve them is rarely the best option.
-
try the D750 :o :o :o
i am still using the D4. i want to sell it to fund my NOCT purchase ::)
it is still an amazing camera you just need to know how and when to use the focus tracking options. if 3D will not work than AF-C single point should be used. i rarely shoot dogs or animals with the D4. i use it for stage events under poor lighting and so far, the AF is OK. it only gets tricky when the subject is in front of a high contrast BG like a brick wall. you will have to change focusing modes for that ::)
like what was mentioned, shifting to canon might not solve your problem as canon will have it's own issues and quirks as well.
surprisingly, my D7200 tracks a bit better than my D4.
-
Your question is too specific and narrow to a particular tool of Nikon to be able to fairly answer it in a "yes" or "no" fashion. It seems to Mongo that several brands each make (in one category or other), what Mongo calls "its Ferrari" which often outperforms other brands' equivalent of the same tool. For this reason, no one brand can claim to be "the best". Even the D4 you refer to is now already superseded in many respects by its successors.
Is Nikon as a brand "the best" ? - NO ......but then again, neither is any other.
Can it be the best ? - theoretically, Yes......but it would require a super human/corporation effort in every aspect of excellence associated with camera and lens manufacturing and all that goes with that including (just to name a tiny fraction) testing and development, warranty, customer service etc etc to the power of 4 at least. In Mongo's view, no company has what it takes to do that, including Nikon.
Having said that, just on probability alone, it will probably have the best available of something or other at any given time (for a period) as will other brands.
The goal posts to the answer to your question keep moving and evolving ....but that is the nature of it. Seemingly harsh but Mongo thinks, realistic.
-
I bought the D4 in 2012 as I wanted to own the best.
---- Possibly your first mistake? There is no "best" camera system. There is only the camera which best meets your shooting needs. ;D
Any of the Nikon Big Ds will track small animals - cats, chipmunks, squirrels, birds. It requires lots and lots of practice to perfect your techniques. The camera won't track for you. You have to learn to track with the camera. This is also true of every Canon which I've tried. I don't know about Sony though. Maybe Sony has a magic camera which will track for you? ;D ;D
I just recently wasted an afternoon tracking roadside signs from a car while passing by them at 70 mph. And to my amazement the Nikon D750 is capable of doing that after I figured out a couple of techniques. [No, of course I was not doing the driving -- I was being a passenger. Lol.] I did fill the D750 buffers way too soon however. Made me long to have a Big D again.
-
1- I would be curious to know what are the settings on your D4 when you were tracking your little dog in the garden? And was the dog running towards you or across?
99.99% of the time it is a combination of photographer error with his camera miss-setting and shooting routine.
2- Issuing a new firmware upgrade is not a sine qua non condition. If there is no need for one, then there is no need for one.
3- Failing of main board after upgrade????
I assume you followed the correct procedure for the D4 single firmware upgrade???
And was the fail at upgrade time or later after some usage?
Firmware upgrade do not toast cameras but failure to follow procedure incapacitates it.
You purchased the camera in 2012 and the D4 firmware upgrade was in 2014. How many years of warranty does your camera have?
If you cannot track with a Nikon D4 or any Nikon full frame, you will not be able to track with a Canon. Try to track with a Canon in low light and let me know how you get along.
-
You need to worry less about spending lavishly on gear, and more on your technique and knowledge of your gear. Photographers the world over have been using either Nikon or Canon cameras less advanced than the D4 to capture considerably more challenging images than pet pics for many years, and with great success. No camera will ever compensate for a deficit in a user's mastery of his equipment, and no camera exists that will take long, high fps strings of perfectly focused images with a quickly moving, erratic subject without any missed frames.
-
Hi All,
Thank you for the replies. I have obviously thought of all the points you mention ... in reality I didn't need the D4. For years and years I could not afford to buy one of Nikon's big professional models, but I used to own a Nikon F that my Dad had bought for me. Once you start using these cameras, it is hard to go back to the lesser models - they just don't feel right. I started with D80, then moved to D300 before the D4. Now that I can afford it I want to buy the best model that fits my budget. And the best doesn't need to be the priciest - if the D800 had been a 20MP camera and did not have all the issues I would have bought it instead of the D4.
Anyway the real question I was asking was is Nikon the best brand? What makes a brand the best?
I feel that in recent years Nikon has lost a bit of its way. I don't really know what it stands for anymore. Earlier I used to expect Nikon to have great build quality and one of the best optics - that seemed to be where it was at, rather than being the most popular. But now, Canon is arguably better or same quality - there seems to be a lot admiration for how Canon puts together its cameras and lenses from sites such as lensrentals.com - and Canon's optics mostly perform better in all the tests.
Nikon's product development approach seems also a bit haphazard. Look at the the number of product lines it has launched in recent years and then just discarded ... they seem to give up too easily. I thought the Nikon 1 V1 was a cool camera - and yet following that each new V model seems to be an experiment ... and now with the DL line, they have killed the Nikon 1 line virtually. What about Coolpix A? Was that a one-off? And the camera with built-in projector?
Look at the Nikon Df. Why put D600 internals into a camera like Df? If it is a premium product then surely the internals must also be premium not just the shell and outward appearance?
Nikon's F3 model introduced high-eyepoint finders. Yet now Canon cameras have better viewfinder magnification and longer eyepoint - I am thinking of 1DX which has 76% magnification and 20mm eyepoint compared to 70% magnification and 18mm eyepoint in D4. The Df which is supposedly meant to be used with Nikon's older manual lenses has a magnification of 70% and eyepoint of 15mm. Eyepoint and viewfinder magnification matter a lot to someone like me who wears glasses.
The individual cases are not relevant here - I could quote a variety of other examples (e.g. why does the Otus have better coma correction than the supposedly 'Noct' Nikor 58mm f1.4?). My question really is - can one argue that Nikon is the best brand, by some definition of best?
Regards
Dibyendu
-
Playing number games never answers the real questions. For example, the Df finder is much better than any Canon camera I have ever tried. Otus lenses are known to be very highly corrected. On such criteria they are masterpieces of optical design. They also project dull and lifeless images. Numbers can be misleading until seen, and used, in a proper context.
Besides, to what purpose should such answers be relevant? Either you, as the photographer, take the picture, or you fail. In nearly all cases of failure it is the operator not the gear that is to blame.
-
Re the D4 AF performance issues I mentioned - just to answer some of the questions:
I tried all possible options and combinations.
I tried various lenses and eventually the 24-70mm zoom thinking that maybe the AF of other lenses could not keep up.
The conclusion was that I got shots where the focus points were clearly on the subject but the subject was out of focus. In a sequence only some shots would be in focus.
When photographing human subjects like in a game I did not face this issue.
I also agree that Canon may be no better in this regard ... and maybe Nikon's group AF concept would help but the D4 did not have it.
Regards
-
Hi Bjørn,
I completely agree that the gear is immaterial for a great photographer; but still we do need to decide which brand to invest in thinking of the longer term for obvious reasons such as building up a system. I have invested in Nikon brand for over 20 years, but questioning whether to continue. But the investment makes it very difficult to move, and for the same argument that you mention - that really the gear doesn't matter.
Regards
Dibyendu
-
Some people think 'switching' camera brands is similar to the change of clean shirts. The truth is that it takes time and resources to start over again in a new ecosystem, and you lose money every time. Besides, each system has its specialities scarcely found elsewhere. Are these critically important - perhaps to a few, not likely not the general audience.
The basic problem that you cannot escape no matter what brand you end up with is that AF for the camera is not equavalent to 'sharpness' for humans. A camera cannot understand the concept of sharpness or the intention of the human operator. It can only maximise parameters of a model.
-
Wildlife, animals running and the others that run fast are/will be always a trick issue between gear and photographer.
If I look back the percentage of in focus pictures that I could take comparative to today were much less. And indeed not gear fault...
We have to understand that AF is not a faultless feature of cameras. In fact it fails a lot. But bear in mind you could do better than expected.
The D4 is an extraordinary piece of gear AF related.
Please make attention to what's your priority assignment in the buttons. Often if focus is your priority you get much lower success, just because the camera will wait the subject to be in focus to shot, but then when she shots the object is no longer in focus. Change this setting to shooter priority and the reverse applies.
This very simple setting has done to me more than the increase in AF performance over the years.
-
On a general note, once AF operation is moved exclusively to the dedicated AF-ON button, you are more likely to achieve what you want. Or better understand who is the limiting factor.
-
@Almass
The firmware upgrade was done following correct procedure - with fully charged battery. The upgrade just hung midway and the camera then became unusable; had to send it to Nikon who replaced the main board.
It is of course impossible to prove that there was no human error; but the lesson was that firmware upgrades are at user risk.
Regards
Dibyendu
-
Best for what? For whom? In which environmental setting?
You are new here (welcome btw), we don't know who you are let alone what kind of images you produce so these questions are meaningless without a reference.
So show us what you do with your "greatest" camera and post some images, then we can talk.
-
Sorry that doesn't sound welcoming.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nikongear.com <admin@nikongear.com>
Date: 3 December 2008 at 08:00
Subject: Welcome to Nikongear.com
To: xxxx@gmail.com
You are now registered with an account at Nikongear.com, dibyendumajumdar!
-
Thats the old forum....
Let me rephrase, you are more than welcome but I don't know you, either from the old or the new forum. So your questions what is best is pointless because I have no idea what your needs or capabilities are.
My only reference about you is your complaining about Nikon and that you keep repeating the "best" and "greatest" but so far the only experience I read are about the AF problems with a D4 tracking a tiny dog in the back garden.
So I ask again, please show us some of your work so we know whom we are dealing with.
-
Mostly my photography is private for the family so cannot share. Here is some public stuff using D4 when I was testing the Sigma lens:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameragossip/albums/72157639168233315
But it doesn't matter what the context is as the question was a generic one regarding Nikon.
-
Anyway the real question I was asking was is Nikon the best brand? What makes a brand the best?
I feel that in recent years Nikon has lost a bit of its way. I don't really know what it stands for anymore. Earlier I used to expect Nikon to have great build quality and one of the best optics - that seemed to be where it was at, rather than being the most popular. But now, Canon is arguably better or same quality - there seems to be a lot admiration for how Canon puts together its cameras and lenses from sites such as lensrentals.com - and Canon's optics mostly perform better in all the tests.
Nikon's product development approach seems also a bit haphazard. Look at the the number of product lines it has launched in recent years and then just discarded ... they seem to give up too easily. I thought the Nikon 1 V1 was a cool camera - and yet following that each new V model seems to be an experiment ... and now with the DL line, they have killed the Nikon 1 line virtually. What about Coolpix A? Was that a one-off? And the camera with built-in projector?
Look at the Nikon Df. Why put D600 internals into a camera like Df? If it is a premium product then surely the internals must also be premium not just the shell and outward appearance?
Nikon's F3 model introduced high-eyepoint finders. Yet now Canon cameras have better viewfinder magnification and longer eyepoint - I am thinking of 1DX which has 76% magnification and 20mm eyepoint compared to 70% magnification and 18mm eyepoint in D4. The Df which is supposedly meant to be used with Nikon's older manual lenses has a magnification of 70% and eyepoint of 15mm. Eyepoint and viewfinder magnification matter a lot to someone like me who wears glasses.
The individual cases are not relevant here - I could quote a variety of other examples (e.g. why does the Otus have better coma correction than the supposedly 'Noct' Nikor 58mm f1.4?). My question really is - can one argue that Nikon is the best brand, by some definition of best?
Regards
Dibyendu
Welcome to the new NikonGear! I don't remeber you from the old site,,,
We have an introduction section somwhere ;)
Choose a brand that fits your purpose but first understand that this is not a numbers game at all!
I read the Lensretals blog and I don't see this difference between Canon and Nikon lenses, you state best - best is not always the highest number; best is the most pleasing image I hope, not the images shot with the highes number.
I also don't understand all these little Nikon 1 etc. and why they bother making them,,, Back to that later.
The Df was designed with light weight in mind, sure it could have been designed more study - the Df II might be that but then it's another design criteria,,,
Your number game again with the viewfinders show you don't really understand the background - higher is not better! Anyone who has shot a MF lens with a Df would know that.
Re 58mm 1.4 AFS G also 35mm 1.4 AFS G they where designed with a 'balanced' optical design and image performance - The optices are on purpose left with abrations to keep the IQ in the out of focus transitions as soft and pleasent as possible while at the same time having plenty of sharpness - It's a clear and stated goal for these Nikkor lenses. Loads of character,,,
The coma correction is high in the 58mm 1.4 AFS G, compared with many other fast lenses and it is plenty good enough corrected IMHO (Plese show an image where it matters- makes a difference)
Different tools for different purposes!
The Otus series are designed for crispness and corrected - lack of character,,,
Your statement you cant make AF images of your dog with D4 is mind boggeling to me since I would bet that you could with a Nikon 1,,,, Since they have much more depth of field - DOF is also not a number thing ;)
-
Lenses last longer than camera bodies these days, and they say "diamonds are forever". I think that what really makes for greatness in any brand are the lenses, and all brands have some of those special lenses. 8)
-
Hi Eric,
Thank you for the nice welcome! I am a bit self conscious about the Intro thing so have never bothered with it.
I was in fact looking for some of your lens dissections to compare with the lensrentals disassembly of Canon lenses - would you post links to these as I cannot find them on the old site.
I normally do not post unless I have something worthwhile to say or a question to ask. Right now I have a D5 on order but am having doubts about whether to stay with Nikon, so it helps to hear views on why Nikon is still the greatest!
Re the number game - I have not tried the Df, but I know from comparing say the F6 to D4, that the D4 isn't as good as F6, and partly it has to do with viewfinder magnification. My FM2 has the loveliest view but the eyepoint is so poor that I can't see the full screen. In summary it is not about numbers but actual experience - but numbers do tend to agree with experience.
Regards
-
I don't have an overview of the lenses I have worked on, usually I only open lenses to make them work again ;) If you have specific requests I can see what I can do - Just ask in the Lens section We have many talented DIY people here!
-
Are you asking me?
I have been using Nikon gear since my Nikkormat FT in 1973.
I think I am somewhat biased.
BTW.
I also use Fuji X series cameras and they are very good but the AF is terrible for moving objects and especially in low light. However the IQ is very good and is probably just as good as my D3 or D3S but not so good as the D800 or D600.
I have just ordered a D500.
-
Mostly my photography is private for the family so cannot share. Here is some public stuff using D4 when I was testing the Sigma lens:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameragossip/albums/72157639168233315
But it doesn't matter what the context is as the question was a generic one regarding Nikon.
Thanks Dibyendu, now we know which little rascal can outrun the D4 AF ;D
His color is in the same grey range as grass in the shade so this might explain why the AF couldn't track it properly as it needs contrast to work properly.
The other images show you like shooting in low light, like me. If so this means you should have a camera like the D4 which can work under these conditions, both in AF and and in high ISO performance. So a camera can have the best viewfinder specs but if it can't perform in those conditions it's useless for your use.
I have experienced this as well with my move to the Sony A7s, for me this was the best camera for my needs which is using fast manual focus lenses with different mounts in low light conditions.
But now that I moved to AF with my main 35mm lens I'm experiencing horrible AF performance in low light conditions due to the lack of phase detect AF. So the a7S can no longer be used for my main lens, so for that reason alone I've ordered the A7RII which has 399 phase detect sensors and a very fast AF in all light conditions so should be able to make my Sony Zeiss 35/1.4 FE shine as its supposed to shine in AF performance and IQ (42MP with good ISO performance).
-
What did Ansel Adams say about the 12 inches behind the camera? It is totally amazing what you can do with the same old gear and a lot of photographer improvement.
-
Thanks Dibyendu, now we know which little rascal can outrun the D4 AF ;D
His color is in the same grey range as grass in the shade so this might explain why the AF couldn't track it properly as it needs contrast to work properly.
The other images show you like shooting in low light, like me. If so this means you should have a camera like the D4 which can work under these conditions, both in AF and and in high ISO performance. So a camera can have the best viewfinder specs but if it can't perform in those conditions it's useless for your use.
I have experienced this as well with my move to the Sony A7s, for me this was the best camera for my needs which is using fast manual focus lenses with different mounts in low light conditions.
But now that I moved to AF with my main 35mm lens I'm experiencing horrible AF performance in low light conditions due to the lack of phase detect AF. So the a7S can no longer be used for my main lens, so for that reason alone I've ordered the A7RII which has 399 phase detect sensors and a very fast AF in all light conditions so should be able to make my Sony Zeiss 35/1.4 FE shine as its supposed to shine in AF performance and IQ (42MP with good ISO performance).
Hi Jan,
Re the dog being the same grey range as grass - I suppose you are correct but shouldn't the D4's ability to detect colour help disambiguate?
I do like photography in low light, so yes that was a big reason why I chose D4 in the first place. Plus the resolution was in the range I preferred (true also for D5).
I have considered Sony (own a NEX-5N) but I would probably go for Leica M instead as I still want a real viewfinder not an electronic one. So one option I have been considering is a combination of D750 and Leica M262 - the former for situations where I just need to get the shot, and latter when I just want to take pictures for pleasure.
But the D5 is still on order so have to decide soon once it becomes available.
Regards
Dibyendu
-
I have experienced this as well with my move to the Sony A7s, for me this was the best camera for my needs which is using fast manual focus lenses with different mounts in low light conditions.
BTW the other reason why I haven't opted for Sony is that it doesn't handle manual rangefinder lenses very well as tests done by Sean Reid show. You need the Leica M to get good performance right to the edges.
Regards
Dibyendu
-
As regards focus tracking: Sometime... if you haven't already.... try manual focus with tracking subjects. A certain number of shots will be totally out of focus, but a certain number will be good, and...you did it, not the machine. If the camera operators on sports games on TV can do it, you can also.
-
As regards focus tracking: Sometime... if you haven't already.... try manual focus with tracking subjects. A certain number of shots will be totally out of focus, but a certain number will be good, and...you did it, not the machine. If the camera operators on sports games on TV can do it, you can also.
Those video cameras have focus system designed for focus tracking, and they use electronic viewfinders/screens that may offer focus peaking, unlike a DSLR.
-
Leica M has terrible High ISO performance, just so you know,,, I love my Leica M9 and yes with a properly adjusted rangefinder you can shoot away - but hitting say 50mm f/1.4 or 70mm f/2 at night,,, not so easy,,, you need to stop down and/or tripod then it will work,,,
A good DSLR and a Leica M is a great combination.
-
Those video cameras have focus system designed for focus tracking, and they use electronic viewfinders/screens that may offer focus peaking, unlike a DSLR.
People still shoot with AF? Ha Ha.
And I had forgotten that most auto focus lenses sabotage the ability to focus by hand. I even own one of those: the Nikkor AF-S 300/4.
-
For me Nikon is the Greatest fror two reasons:
1) I got a lot of Nikon stuff
2) 30 minutes away I got people who can mend my gear and do mend my gear very fast very reliable and for a reasonable price
This might also be the Case with Canon, I know some people who shoot German Football and they are very happy with Canon service.
I hear Sony people have to wait up to six weeks to get their expensive gear mended.
Sorry, Sony. No deal for me.
Yesterday I threw all my gear at NPS, now, 24 hours later I got a serious repair plus a complete check & clean, Done. Redy to collect. That is convincing.
-
What did Ansel Adams say about the 12 inches behind the camera? It is totally amazing what you can do with the same old gear and a lot of photographer improvement.
photographer improvement is the main feature of exactly no camera.
-
Welcome Sir.
Sorry if this sounds less than friendly, but this is not my intention.
The attached photo is of a radio-controlled model powered by a turbine (jet) engine. It has a wing-span of around 1.2m and was approaching me at around 300-350km/h.
My D750 and 500mm f4 were more than capable of keeping up AF-wise. So was the D7000 before it.
Once again I apologise, but if your D4 cannot keep up with a little hairy dog in the garden, the fault is probably not with the D4.
As to whether Nikon is the best, my take is, if they aren't then nobody is. No camera manufacturer is clearly better at everything than any other.
In fact I suspect that no brand is better than any other at any one performance parameter than any other for a continuous period of 5 years.
-
Welcome Sir.
Sorry if this sounds less than friendly, but this is not my intention.
The attached photo is of a radio-controlled model powered by a turbine (jet) engine. It has a wing-span of around 1.2m and was approaching me at around 300-350km/h.
My D750 and 500mm f4 were more than capable of keeping up AF-wise. So was the D7000 before it.
Once again I apologise, but if your D4 cannot keep up with a little hairy dog in the garden, the fault is probably not with the D4.
As to whether Nikon is the best, my take is, if they aren't then nobody is. No camera manufacturer is clearly better at everything than any other.
In fact I suspect that no brand is better than any other at any one performance parameter than any other for a continuous period of 5 years.
A dog may move more erratically then a model airplane, so it will be more difficult to track. Also your model airplane creates a good contrast to the blue sky with its' orange wings.
-
Also depth of field in a close up of a dog can only be a couple of cm so it is much more demanding to keep the closest eye in focus while approaching than a model aircraft fully in the depth of field. Complex background can create confounding factors as well.
-
Again, go to the small trick explain by me some post before.
Also put AF tracking in slow setting against a busy background.
-
Hi All
I no longer have the D4 (as it is in a shop for commission sale) - but assuming I get the D5 soon I will redo the tests and this time post evidence good or bad and hopefully you all can tell me where I am going wrong. My guess though is that Jan is right that the greyness of the dog's coat and the background grass is in the same range and therefore the camera doesn't have enough contrast to work with. At least that seems like a plausible explanation.
It is interesting that no one here seriously thinks that Nikon is the greatest brand today. Yet in the 70s and 80s perhaps you would have had less hesitation to claiming that Nikon is the greatest ... I wonder. I have been deeply interested in Nikon's evolution and watched it since the mid 80s when I first started using a Nikon camera, through the various ups and downs. I do feel that Nikon appears to have lost the plot a bit. Here are my reasons:
1. After introducing the N1 series no indication of bringing the off sensor phase detection to the DSLR range ... in the meantime Canon and Sony started later but are making steady progress in bringing this technology to larger format sensors.
2. Confused approach with N1 series cameras.
3. Confused approach in the DX series - replacement of D300 delayed by years.
4. No serious competitor to Canon's 5D after D700 - the D800 series is high resolution so not really in the same bracket. This is puzzling as 5D is Canon's one of the most successful product lines.
5. Poor support of D series models - what I mean by this is that an 's' model is introduced rather than attempting to improve the existing model through firmware upgrades. Almost planned obsolescence - the very thing the Nikon F series wasn't.
6. Maybe when it comes to lenses Nikon's lens range is great and shows some creativity. The 58mm and 35mm f1.4 lenses could be termed 'Designer' lenses - it is great to see the courage required to launch such products. But the fact that after years of claiming that the ED glass was better than fluorite now suddenly Fluorite is the in thing. I guess weight reduction is the primary reason but still it is an about turn.
7. Confused approach in the compact camera segment - for a while the high end compact was neglected, then we had Coolpix A, and now the DL series.
I feel that Canon's approach seems more systematic, steady and shows more persistence. Sony is extremely fast moving but I don't think they really have got the hang of what makes a great camera.
Anyway these are just my thoughts.
Regards
Dibyendu
-
Comparing brands by declaring one is "the greatest" is to be polite, not a very productive way of thinking. What is your agenda by posting this? Throwing out assumptions as were they facts, then starting to argue against these is a classic way of destroying any meaningful discourse.
We don't invite to flame wars. Period. As stated elsewhere, if the camera delivers, it is good enough, no matter what brand it belongs to. If the camera does not deliver, chances are high that the photographer is to blame not the gear.
I think all viewpoints have been extremely well covered in the thread so far. That is a good stage at which to stop.
-
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I agree on the Nikon 1 range, it's super strange for me they chose that tiny sensor.
The rest I can't relate to at all, sorry ;)
I use a variety of Nikon cameras as well as other brands and have done so since the 80's mainly Nikon and Pentax 6x7 I admit,,,
Your reference to ED and the 58 and 35mm is funny, I had the same thought when they came out, I even stated it on the old site, but as soon as I started shooting with them I didn't bother with what they put into the glass melting pot - They just work! For the intended type of photography.
I continue to find that you focus way too much on numbers and too little on the photographs.
It's OK to like other brands here but no need to bash Nikon on and on,,, doesn't really serve a greater purpose IMHO
Thanks
Edit to add: It seems I cross posted with Bjørn here, and I see he has the same opinion as me ;)
-
It is interesting that no one here seriously thinks that Nikon is the greatest brand today.
You are soooooo missing the point. Most of us here do not even think there is such a thing as a "Greatest Brand". For cameras. For automobiles. For household appliances. For anything. 'Greatest Brand' is just a silly concept. Besides which, professionals do not sit around attempting to figure out stuff like 'Greatest Brand'. They are just a bit too busy to take that bait. Really.Silly.Bait.
YOU have to find the camera body and camera system that works for YOU.
Rent a Canon, a Sony, a Fuji, a Nikon, an Olympus.
Try them out on your various kinds of photographic subjects and see what works best for YOU.
Personally I can't see how any of the current camera system manufacturers have 'lost their way'. All the current brands are GOOD!!! EXCELLENT!!! I could shoot with any of them. And actually have tried out most of them. The features and quality we have access to these days simply boggle the mind. Want EVF? You can get it. Want focus peaking? You can get it. Want portability? You can get it. Want very high ISO capability? You can get it. Want low noise? You can get it. Want an extensive lens sytem? You can get it.
It has long been known that sticking with one system and learning it inside-and-out is the best way to achieve quality results.
I think you are thinking too much about manufacturers instead of about photography.
Just go shoot whatever it is you have and learn it and enjoy it.
There are days where I want to dance around like a nutcase and holler at people: Gear is irrelevant to photography.
-
Hi All,
I am sorry if I appeared to be bashing Nikon. I guess I am just suffering from buyer's anxiety as it gets time to get the D5 .... but agree better to stop.
I maintain a small site on camera gear (http://www.cameragossip.com/) - hopefully that proves I am not anti Nikon.
Regards
-
Don't buy it. Rent it and see if it works for you. It might. It might not.
-
Andrea. Gear might be overrated if you think photography.
Yet I see that a lot of camera owners like car owners or HiFi equipment owners use the gear to represent.
I think for representation purposes the followin rules apply:
It is important that it is expensive
It is important that it is rare
It is important that it is the latest and greatest
I would recommend to the thread opener to check out tge H5D with some super exotic APO lens.
The D5 is only the AUDI in the Photo World.
I you want the Ferrari or Rolls Royce think Bigger.
Think Acra Swiss and Rodenstock and Dalsa Digibacks from Phase One....
-
None of these suggested "show-off" items will track in AF better than any D4/D5 camera. Quite the contrary.
-
I don't know whether Nikon is "the best". I suppose, in terms of technology and ergonomics, Nikon and Canon are, generally speaking, on the same level. Both make great cameras and great lenses (and some not so great ones). Sometimes things are trivial: I still use Nikon equipment, because I bought my first Nikon camera in 1977. Once you've got your array of lenses, you're more or less hooked to a system. So I stuck with Nikon, even when I switched from analogue to digital. The D4 ist not the greatest camera on earth - I hold the D810 in higher esteem -, but it served me well in the last 4 years. As I often do close-ups and macros of plants (and sometimes insects) in gardens and in the wild (recently in the Drakensberg in South Africa), where I cannot use a tripod and where there is often some wind, I'm reliant on a fast and robust camera with high sensitivity which allows me to take hand-held shots at short shutter speeds with great DOF (usually using the Micro-Nikkor 2,8/105mm). Video doesn't interest me, but a somewhat higher resolution would be nice for cropping. My 5K display has almost as many pixels as my D4, so cropped pictures often don't even cover the entire screen. And an embedded GPS would be nice, too.
-
None of these suggested "show-off" items will track in AF better than any D4/D5 camera. Quite the contrary.
Sure. But imagine an Acra Swiss with a nice Superwide LF Lens on a Berlebach instead of a Giacometti as the center piece of a living room or study...
-
I have done my duties with various Arca-Swiss cameras over the years, thank you. All formats from 6x9 up to 8x10". The F-Line 6x9 was superb until rain commenced ... The bigger units needed to be tied down with guy ropes if used in wind outdoors. These days, film is long dead. Thus, give me a Nikon any time instead.
Berlebach tripods were horrible for my usual shooting venues which more often than not comprised mud, water, or snow. I had one and used it for firewood later when it had warped all out of true. I ditched the Gitzo back in the early '80s and replaced with Sachtlers. No need to look back except in anger that I procrastinated so long in the switching.
-
With the risk of being attacked by several in this thread now, I think my Nikon V1 on a Berlebach tripod is the greatest :P
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7156/13925798134_98a36a8188_z.jpg)
-
With the risk of being attacked by several in this thread now, I think my Nikon V1 on a Berlebach tripod is the greatest :P
Nahhh, whatever you think is the greatest for you IS the greatest, period ;D
Nice setup btw.
-
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7156/13925798134_98a36a8188_z.jpg)
Love it. Very much so.
-
A dog may move more erratically then a model airplane, so it will be more difficult to track. Also your model airplane creates a good contrast to the blue sky with its' orange wings.
Keeping the subject under the active focus point is the photographer's job.
Anything else leaves you no control over the composition.
Yes, irregular movement is tricky and will lead to some missed shots, but assuming the active focus point is kept on the eye (or at least on the dog's face) one should get a high percentage of keepers.
How about these for more difficult subjects?
-
Peter Connan: The first picture is adorable as such. That said I want to know more about tracking.
Do you use the AF-ON-technique that many Action shooters apply (and I have never even tried in my life)?
-
Thanks JA and Frank, I am very happy using my Berlebach Report with my Nikkor 300/4 and V1 and to that it looks nice.
-
Greatest or not, the Nikons and their sundry associated items take up an awful lot of space in my car boot :D (also seen a couple of decent tripods).
By the way, the keen observer will spot the longest zoom lens in my possession, the 360-1200 Nikkor, buried somewhere in the pile.
-
I alway love to have a look into your car trunk. This equipment is heavily tested!
-
Unfortunately (or not?), cannot travel abroad with all this stuff as long as I go by air.
-
Unfortunately (or not?), cannot travel abroad with all this stuff as long as I go by air.
Well, getting you camera bag into a plane would be a nightmare.
The holds just aren't big enough for your car.
Hermann
-
Unfortunately (or not?), cannot travel abroad with all this stuff as long as I go by air.
Try this method instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror
-
Keeping the subject under the active focus point is the photographer's job.
Anything else leaves you no control over the composition.
Yes, irregular movement is tricky and will lead to some missed shots, but assuming the active focus point is kept on the eye (or at least on the dog's face) one should get a high percentage of keepers.
How about these for more difficult subjects?
Particularly the first image is nice!
Using focus tracking, will imply a looser composition and cropping in post, in some cases. That is the price you will pay for getting the shot.
-
Peter Connan: The first picture is adorable as such. That said I want to know more about tracking.
Do you use the AF-ON-technique that many Action shooters apply (and I have never even tried in my life)?
Thank you and Bjornthun for the compliments.
Frank, yes I do. I also very carefully select the number of focus points for the subject and background.
If the subject is small or far away, and especially if the background is busy or of similar contrast to the subject, one has to use the minimum number of focus points. As the object becomes larger or closer, and the background cleaner, so more focus points can be enabled.
So for the three birds in that post, I would have used either Group Area, or 9 points, whereas for the plane in my earlier post all 51 points would have been fine.
If many focus points are active, covering both subject and a busy background, the camera has no good way of determining what the object is.
3-D is supposed to be able to do this, but I have had no success with that. Perhaps the D5 with it's dedicated AF processor might be significantly better. Only time will tell.
-
Greatest or not, the Nikons and their sundry associated items take up an awful lot of space in my car boot :D (also seen a couple of decent tripods).
By the way, the keen observer will spot the longest zoom lens in my possession, the 360-1200 Nikkor, buried somewhere in the pile.
I just scrolled down and saw the pic - didn't even have to see your name to know that was yours. Missing the bananas