9 ms·
I think camera bodies make a much larger difference these days than lenses, actually. Obviously the lens still makes a notable difference, and for certain forms
by robotmay 6y ago
I think camera bodies make a much larger difference these days than lenses, actually. Obviously the lens still makes a notable difference, and for certain forms, like wildlife photography, the lens requirements are inescapable. The new models out in the past few years have absolutely incredible low-light performance that completely change the lens landscape, even; you can now ditch the requirement of carrying a hefty f/2.8 400mm lens around and swap it out for a lightweight f/4 with a camera that more than compensates for the light loss.
But with the capabilities of modern cameras the production requirements for them are high and the challenge to make something that works for a variety of consumers even higher. I can't even look at a camera that isn't "weather-proofed" as I live in a place with a 90% chance of rain at any moment, for example. And a lot of these advancements are designed to work in combination with the lenses, such as in-body and in-lens stabilisation working together, weather seals that line up, etc. I think it's pretty important to maintain the same manufacturing quality between the two areas. I'm sure that's possible when moving production to Thailand, but I expect it will take time for them to iron out their processes.
My personal experience of Canon vs Nikon is that I prefer the software of Canon, and historically I preferred the physical ergonomics of Nikon, but the newest Canon models have improved a lot there. On the lens side it was always Canon for me, although I do have a lot of love for Sigma: my 150-600mm Sigma lens has a USB dock where I can actually manually configure the autofocus, among other things, which appeals to my gadget side (and honestly their quality has jumped up massively in the past decade).
- hef19898 6y agoHonestly, my active days are over a bit. Back the day, so, I was part of an active group photographers, mostl ynature and outdoor. Like back when we still used film. Can't agree more on the weather-proof part. I was ather funny to be out taking pictures all day, only to find the camera was sitting in 5 cm of water in its protective bag. Nikon did work better druing that, than. Just an anecdote so, some Nikon's didn't like it that good neither. Some Sigma lenses were really good back than, some on par with Nikkor. Canon lenses were, if I remember well, mostly on par with Nikkor. Been used to Nikon so, I always to break the lighter Canon camera bodies.
- ghaff 6y agoSigma used to be one of the brands you bought because you didn't have the money for the camera manufacturer's lens. Now, they have unique models in a number of cases. I still have mostly Canon glass but I have a couple Sigma models because Canon doesn't have the equivalent.
- LandR 6y agoHaven't used a sigma lense for years. Are they now comparable quality to NIkon/Canon lenses?
- Der_Einzige 6y agoSigma makes some of the best and highest quality lenses (compared to competitors), at least that's my experience with a Sony E mount aps-c camera...
- iamatworknow 6y agoThey're way better than they used to be. I have a few Sigma "Art" lenses that are incredible, at half the price (at least at the time) of the Nikon equivalents.
- robotmay 6y agoI have a Sigma 150-600mm Sport, which is a hell of a lens, both in quality/features and uh...weight :D It's totally hand-holdable, but reviews online make me wonder if everyone else has pipe cleaners for arms; it took a couple of weeks to get used to it but I don't have any trouble now. The image quality is fantastic and extremely competitive. The image-stabilisation works superbly, and the autofocus is very good - much better than their older lenses. I mostly photograph birds and I'm extremely happy with the quality. All the recent bird photos I've uploaded are taken with it: https://www.flickr.com/photos/robotmay/50528664881/in/dateposted-public/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/robotmay/50528664881/in/datepo...
- LandR 6y agoThanks, your photos are great. I'd like to get myself a long lense for those kinds of shots but I really can't afford Nikon prices!
- m463 6y ago> I think camera bodies make a much larger difference these days than lenses, actually. They always have. Yet strangely you can buy an L lens and it may outlast a whole series of bodies. (if we continue to have DSLRs that is).
- hef19898 6y agoOh yeah, that's true! Also worked well between analog and digital SLRs in Nikon's case. After accounting for different film/sensor sizes. My old Sigma is showing its age so, last time I tried.
- sudosysgen 6y agoYou can even use the 80-200 2.8 L on even a Sony A7RIV, so certainly! That's what, 30 years?
- foldr 6y ago>I think it's pretty important to maintain the same manufacturing quality between the two areas. I'm sure that's possible when moving production to Thailand, but I expect it will take time for them to iron out their processes. Nikon have already been making weather-sealed cameras in Thailand for ages (e.g. the D7500). I think your concerns here are overblown. Any quality problems with their Thai manufacturing operation would already be apparent, given that most of their cameras are made there.