The Dallas Morning News Article has gone byebye.
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20100421065410/http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spe/2003/jfk/stories/063002dnmetshot.378ed.html
Agreed–my first few digital cameras drove me crazy. My Canon DSLRs have usually been better, at least after I started to figure out what I was doing. I still use manual focus for some subjects.
@jerwin: Thanks. Should have known.
When people ask me about a good, casual camera at a decent cost, I frequently recommend the Lumix models.
Personally, I have moved from big pro cameras to Leica rangefinders. I have been trying to balance the best quality I can find with the convenience of small size. I tried to switch to a phone, bit it just was not a good fit. Plus, I spend as much time as possible out of cell range.
I can’t think of a good way to describe what I mean. I have nothing against aiming for and occasionally achieving perfection, but my problem with cameras such as A9 is their guarantee of perfection. I don’t know it that makes sense.
Also, I think photographers have become a little too obsessed with “sharpness” lately.
True enough, I do have a lens that I use when I know a client wants perfectly bland pictures — the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8. It’s a great sharp lens and I really do love what it can do, but it sadly has no personality.
It sounds like an arms race. It sounds like you work in this sort of environment? Is it enjoyable?
I did find this while looking for it though…
Dislike “perfect” photos all you like. But realize that those “imperfect” ones you prefer are often just as deliberate and controlled. With non-studio photography there’s a fair bit of chance involved, but a good photog will still maintain exacting control of as much as they can.
Sony’s glass across their entire product line comes from Zeiss. In terms of photographic (and other) lenses they’re usually considered top tier. The old “best in the world” ranking was a 3 way tie between Zeiss Leica and Nikon. Outside of the super telephotos Canon’s were, traditionally, not very good. Though they’ve vastly improved things over the last 10 years. And from what I hear Nikon has come down a bit (though I’ve not messed with still photo lenses in a long while). So its now more of a Cannon=Nikon<Zeiss&Leica situation from what I gather.
That said even if the quality of the actual glass elements is excellent. I’ve got not clue about the rest of it. Durability. Aperture range. Focus distances etc. A lot goes into making a lens good to great besides just quality glass. They don’t even have seem to have the sort of reputation that some of the other quality lens makers that aren’t considered tops have. Like how Pentax used to have the reputation for durability. Old Pentax lenses are borderline indestructible. I’ve never even seen one with fungus.
With that Canon vs Nikon summary you completely and perfectly summed up the counter philosophies of Japanese manufacturing.
@Ryuthrowsstuff perfectly summed up Sony’s engineering philosophy as well.
Hear-hear!
Do I work in this sort of environment? Hardly.
I’ve read my share of articles, and seen my share of videos.
Stuff like this:
I own a 300mm prime, but it’s an f4. And my camera is a D7000, not state of the art.
The shop where I sold camera equipment had the Canon 600mm’s on hand (they provided surprisingly little commission for all their dollar value). But also kept cheap (er) , off brand, screw mount 1500mm and 2000mm lenses on hand. The 1500mm ones were f4. Fixed f4. As in they only had one f-stop. And it was a 4. I believe the 2000mm’s were fixed f11. Those things were pretty crappy. Basically a kids telescope with a tripod mount and a standard screw mount. But we sold a few of them to press photogs who were stuck for lenses. Because those and a screw mount adapter were far, far cheaper than the legit Canon lens.
Oh no. It’s this one.
http://www.bythom.com/300lens.htm
I picked up a (Kenko) teleconvertor for it, but it changes the lens from being a ecstatic joy to use into a so-so “420 mm” f5.6. A damn shame.
Never messed around with mirror lenses.
A 1500mm f4 must be crazily wide.
Anyone can get into it. But if you want to run with the top dogs, like on the side of an NFL game, you need top equipment. This is commercial photography, where the results are all that matter - not some artsy fartsy thing where they could get away with cell phones or even disposable cameras if the composition and theme works with it.
I used to take action shots for a paintball magazine with a Canon A1 and had 3 Japanese lenses which would allow me to do most tasks. I had to manual focus, though, so movement shots were harder for me.
I recently tried to do some photography for my kids Volleyball matches. Phone camera was very meh - simply not fast enough. Old ass Canon Rebel something or rather go the job done.
It’s like racing. Anyone with a car can race. You want to be a pro, though, and you have to have a better tier of equipment.
I assume that is sarcasm, but that confetti must act like chaff for an autofocus.
Nope - anyone can get lucky. Many of the most iconic photos in history were a raise of the lens and snap.
This presentation shows that in sports photography, 10 fps is not enough to capture a soccer kick, or a volleyball spike, You need burst shutter because your finger isn’t fast to react to the kick of a ball, yet odds are good that the shot you really want-- the moment of impact will still fall in between the frames.
https://graphics.stanford.edu/talks/sports-public-nov10-150dpi.pdf
At the front of the lens yes. When I described it as a kids telescope with a screw mount I wasn’t exagerating. You basically had a not absurdly wide aluminum tube with a much wider front piece containing most of the elements. F-stop was fixed, but there was a plastic ring with slight adjustments so you could make sure it was actually at 4. Twiddle it till the lens is functional essentially. Focus was likewise fixed at infinity. But you had to slide the forward part of the lens backwards and forwards on the tube to achieve that single focus point. As nothing was actually attached together. Just bits of tubing sliding on each other. So things could wander. The 2000mm was slightly less janky.
We used to hook them up to the display cameras and my old k-1000 to play around. They were the fun kind of terrible. But they were terrible. I think we mostly carried them because they looked impressive in the display case. No brand name or markings, made in Asia. No clue when they were made but the packaging looked pretty old. But every once in a while a press pool photog who didn’t usually work with long lenses would be stuck and in need of a super telephoto. They’d look at the name brand options for a few grand. Then snap up the POS for a few hundred. Usually return it later too. I heard the things were borderline disposable in terms of durability. We actually made more commission off them than the more expensive Canons. And more off the screw mount adaptors than either.
ETA: iirc you could actually use that 1500mm like a marshmallow shooter to launch balls of paper around the shop. The main tube had but a single element in it. With a hole at its center. The sliding bits were held together by rubber o rings. So you shove a ball of paper in the mount. Pull the front of the lens all the way back. Then pop it with the heel of your hand to shoot the paper ball.
We also used to use a screw driver and canned air to turn the capacitors in disposable cameras into primitive flash bangs.
All modern glass made in the past 10 years vastly outperforms equivalent cost lenses made 20 years ago. What has changed the industry is computer aided design. A lens designer using modern tools can model the performance of a proposed lens design in an hour. In the old days the same work would take a week with arrows on paper. The glass itself has improved as well.
I have a couple of vintage Nikon fisheyes. Back in the day these were special order and Japanese customers were invited to the factory where their lens would be blessed by a Shinto priest. The cost then was over $10K in today’s money. You can get a much better lens for $200.
Zeiss lenses are not quite the same thing as Zeiss lens designs. The Leica outperforms Nikon or Canon on wide angle lenses because they are rangefinder cameras, there is no mirror sweep to contend with and it isn’t necessary to go for the extreme retrofocus approaches you will see on some of the DSLR lenses. My 8mm fisheyes have a huge front element, easily 120mm across. but manage only f/8. A modern SLR fisheye would be f/2.8. Same lens for a Leica would have a front element of no more than about 12mm and deliver f/1.2.
The reason the lens designers need to go retrofocus is to move the rear element away from the focal plane to avoid the mirror sweep. Sure a Leica is a better camera for wide angle landscapes but the lens designers have less experience with SLR. That was Nikon’s specialty. In fact back before the F1 launched, Nikon mostly made lenses for Canon cameras. The reason Nikon could introduce the first modern SLR was they were the only company with the lens designers.
Those rough rankings are more about raw quality of the glass lens elements. And supposedly hold not just for photography and video/cinema but for other imaging as well. Medical, scientific, surveying, binoculars/field glass.
It’s the precise features of a given line from these manufacturers that would make a their lenses “great” glass. Nikon’s broad apature ranges, And especially small F-stops. Lieca being range finders. Canon’s success with long lenses. The engineering situation you describe with Nikon.
The quality of Nikon’s physical glass hasnt traditionally been as good as Zeiss’s. But all the other stuff with Nikon’s lenses elevates them to the same level. Canons lenses way back in the day do not seem to have been anything special. Comparable to 3rd party lenses, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax (but without the durability).
But Canon’s lenses from around the introduction of the Rebels and early dslrs were awful. Particularly the cheaper ones. I can’t tell you how many of those fuckers were returned as non-functional or damaged when I was selling this stuff. Cheap materials for the lens body. Plastic elements at glass prices. Visible glue everywhere. Including quite often on the main lens itself. Flimsy switches and focus rings. We used to check each one they sent to the shop for problems we were getting so many returns. And Canon stuff was about 80% of our repair business until Casio decided to sell digital point and shoots.
That was 10 years ago. In the meantime Canon has seriously improved manufacturing quality, materials, and fit and finish. Even as the engineering changes you mention has happened across everyone. The base quality of their elements have likewise seemingly improved. While Ive heard people complain that Nikon has slipped a bit. So now they seem about even. Differing mostly in precise features available in each mounting. I still don’t much like Canon. Most of the nifty fifty lenses I’ve handled have the same old excessive glue issue I used to see back when. Just doesn’t seem to impact function anymore. And I still find their white balance over does it on the yellow. Video I’ve never had as issue.
I’m not a professional photographer, but I once was a very keen amateur and one day when my bank balance and schedule allows I plan on becoming a very keen amateur once again. In the meantime, I’m a guy with an average smartphone in my pocket and a decent eye.
I still own a Canon 40D and a Leica LX3. Both were good cameras at the time; but neither were “professional” level, and they’re each about 10 years old now. These days the Canon is obviously heavy, slow and performs poorly in low light, not to mention its missing handy features like a touch screen, lots of focus points, etc. The Leica is lighter, but clunky to use, has no swapable lens and performs even worse in low-light.
In good light, shooting something relatively close I’d almost always choose my phone over either of those cameras; its already in my pocket and the software behind the sensor is about 100times better than either of them; but if:
- I was shooting a band at a gig, the 10 year old 40D would still outshine the phone in every measure. The lenses allow me to get in closer and sharper than digital zoom ever will; the (even relatively poor at the time) low-light performance is still miles better than my phone; and the weight of the rig helps keep my hand steady.
- I was shooting macro; I’d pick either of those cameras over the phone. A tiny phone lens just can’t focus that close or clearly. Both the old cameras still outperform.
- I was shooting landscapes or anything a further than about 10m away I’d take either of those cameras. Despite the (giant) leaps and bounds forwards, phone cameras still don’t result in the same depth of field that a well focussed decent piece of glass ever can; they can’t zoom or focus on anything far away; and the limitations to dynamic range still generally result in either flat, or under/overexposed images that are essential to so many decent landscape shots.
Given this article is about sports photography, the gear I’m discussing never would have even been close to adequate.
It’s going to be close to impossible to get a good shot of something happening in the middle of the MCG without (at the very least) a long and fast lens. The field alone is 146m wide, and AFL (one of the two major sports played there) is fast.
I dislike perfect photographs.
Never buy this camera.
It’s TOO perfect.
