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
