Your missing the whole point I was trying to make. I never meant to put down your choice of lenses due to your pocket book. Let me put it straight and to the point. I have always felt that it was ashame that someone would spend the extra money on an SLR camera, such as a Nikon and then put any lens on it other than the Nikon lens as once any aftermarket lens is put on the Nikon that one saved up to buy, they no longer are getting the advantage of a Nikon.
A photographer can take criticism of the photos they take, you cannot even have an intelligent conversation about the merits of different equipment and learn more about the subject of photography.
To bad. I thought this was a forum for professionals and those amateurs who wanted to learn all aspects of photography. There is so much more to learning the art than you can even imagine.
Uscgret wrote:
Your missing the whole point I was trying to make. I never meant to put down your choice of lenses due to your pocket book. Let me put it straight and to the point. I have always felt that it was ashame that someone would spend the extra money on an SLR camera, such as a Nikon and then put any lens on it other than the Nikon lens as once any aftermarket lens is put on the Nikon that one saved up to buy, they no longer are getting the advantage of a Nikon.
A photographer can take criticism of the photos they take, you cannot even have an intelligent conversation about the merits of different equipment and learn more about the subject of photography.
To bad. I thought this was a forum for professionals and those amateurs who wanted to learn all aspects of photography. There is so much more to learning the art than you can even imagine.
Your missing the whole point I was trying to make.... (
show quote)
So you and regis are really and honestly claiming that all other things being equal a given nikon or canon lens on the same brand camera will beat the equivalent zeiss lens with a nikon or canon mount? Really?
Are you kidding me?
Even the new Sigmas are beating the brand names in quality
twillsol wrote:
Nikon D800, 1/1500, ISO 800, f22
Sigma 50 - 500 lens at 400.
He just purchased a Nikon D5200, used a 55 - 300 kit lens. Do not know his settings.
Hey, unreal, do him a real favour.
Tell her its not only the lens, its the camera/lens combination and you have a D800.
He could be thanking you for years.
Pepper
Loc: Planet Earth Country USA
lighthouse wrote:
Hey, unreal, do him a real favour.
Tell her its not only the lens, its the camera/lens combination and you have a D800.
He could be thanking you for years.
OMG!!! You're suggesting that the equipment makes a difference? Are you daft man? Haven't you heard the one about the stove and the cook or the Indian and the arrow?
I can not see that putting a non Nikon lens on a Nikon body would diminish the quality of the image unless it was truly a lesser quality lens - which I do know are out there - but to say flat outright all Non Nikon lens are inferior is not true - in my opinion.
One more time I emphasis - it is the knowledge and skillful use of the camera equipment that make the photo - without both working together one gets quality photos only once in a while.
Uscgret wrote:
Your missing the whole point I was trying to make. I never meant to put down your choice of lenses due to your pocket book. Let me put it straight and to the point. I have always felt that it was ashame that someone would spend the extra money on an SLR camera, such as a Nikon and then put any lens on it other than the Nikon lens as once any aftermarket lens is put on the Nikon that one saved up to buy, they no longer are getting the advantage of a Nikon.
A photographer can take criticism of the photos they take, you cannot even have an intelligent conversation about the merits of different equipment and learn more about the subject of photography.
To bad. I thought this was a forum for professionals and those amateurs who wanted to learn all aspects of photography. There is so much more to learning the art than you can even imagine.
Your missing the whole point I was trying to make.... (
show quote)
Pepper wrote:
OMG!!! You're suggesting that the equipment makes a difference? Are you daft man? Haven't you heard the one about the stove and the cook or the Indian and the arrow?
I am trying to do his friend a favour :-)
But yes, I will not enter any arguments about it in this thread, but I do believe that the equipment makes a difference.
I came to that conclusion after trying to get shots of the kids when I had my first digital camera (it had what seemed like a 2 second lag).
And a mate showing me phone shots of ugly trees and shrubs while saying "well you can't quite see it in that shot, but there was a pretty little blue bird in there, yeh, in there somewhere, I think its that dot there."
Why does everyone get so upset; when someone that obliviously knows nothing about photography tells you that your camera or lens makes good photo's. I always say, "thank you." when I do my part.
Pepper
Loc: Planet Earth Country USA
Acountry330 wrote:
Why does everyone get so upset; when someone that obliviously knows nothing about photography tells you that your camera or lens makes good photo's. I always say, "thank you." when I do my part.
Fragile egos would be my first guess.
Harvey wrote:
I can not see that putting a non Nikon lens on a Nikon body would diminish the quality of the image unless it was truly a lesser quality lens - which I do know are out there - but to say flat outright all Non Nikon lens are inferior is not true - in my opinion.
One more time I emphasis - it is the knowledge and skillful use of the camera equipment that make the photo - without both working together one gets quality photos only once in a while.
It is not just you humble opinion, but the opinion of experts like DXO Mark. Here is a review of a recent Zeiss lens
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-FE-55mm-f1.8-ZA-lens-review-Exemplary-performance
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.