Nikon PR nightmare

[Tommo1965]

I cant see anything wrong with the statement....

a sharp lens that has great contrast will yield better results than than a inferior design lens ...I think we all know that ...of course its a given that you know how to use said gear....

a long FL lens that can right into the action from your hide..will produce better results than a shorter FL lens that relies on heavy cropping to achieve the same FOV.

isn't this why we upgrade our lenses when our skill level increases beyond what the returns from a kit lens can give us.


the posts are typical of insulted egos that suggest that you cant take good images with the gear you have...of course you can..but they could be better with the right or better gear .... I've no doubt of that

[Lance B]

There is some truth to the statement. I have taken many a shot that I wouldn't have been able to get with a lesser lens due to VR and very fast AF. How about this shot taken with a 300mm f2.8 VRII and a 2x TCIII - 600mm - at 1/20sec on a monopod, that's 5 stops better than 1/focal length law!:



This shot was taken purely handheld at 1/50sec @ 600mm:



I am sure there are many examples that can be shown where the equipment has allowed a shot that wouldn't normally have been able to be have been taken. Whilst it is a very broad brush statement to make that it is the equipment that makes the photographer, it is also just as wrong to say that it is all the photographer. It is a combination of both in many situations that allows for a great shot.

[Speedway]

Nikon updated with this.

Update: Nikon has responded by updating its Facebook page with this message:

We know some of you took offense to the last post, and we apologize, as it was not our aim to insult any of our friends. Our statement was meant to be interpreted that the right equipment can help you capture amazing images. We appreciate the passion you have for photography and your gear, and know that a great picture is possible anytime and anywhere.

Draw your own conclusion.
Keith.

[reflect]

Finally the company that has received thousands of my hard earned dollars have rewarded me by acknowledging me as a good photographer, I can rest and wait for that call from Vogue………………(oohh still waiting, Bugger!!)

[arthurking83]

There is some truth to the statement. ......

I would have said complete truth, but then again this is just my thoughts based on what the quote says.
The problem that's happened here is that (as per usual with the human race) they've placed their own interpretation of what's been said.

In a literal translation, basically the quote reads that a photographer is limited by the gear that they use, which turns out to be a 100% factually correct statement.
There is no comment made in the quote that one photographer is better than another because they use better gear.
There is no reference to other manufacturers gear(nee lenses) being inferior or any of these kinds of implications.. just the fact that a photographer is capable of capturing better images with the use of better quality gear.

They said that using higher quality lenses will get you higher quality results.
To me, I see this as: if you want higher quality Macro images, don't go for the Nikon 105mm VR Micro.. get the Sigma 150mm Macro lens instead. It will provide higher quality images with more detail to begin with, and is cheaper to purchase! If you want an image of the moon with detail.. real detail, then don't even think about a 200-600mm f/5.6-8 Ebay lens, you need something of higher quality.
This could simply be a Sigma 150-500mm, or 50-500mm, or a Tamron 70-200 + 2xTC, or better yet a Nikon/Canon 600mm f/4 or whatever else is financially attainable.
Simple fact is that a better quality product will give a better quality result. In general a better quality product simply costs more than the lower quality products.

Nowhere does it state that to get good results you need top shelf first party manufacturer gear!!
Any notion that this was said in the quote, is an interpretation by others!

I'll use Lance's example image here, and we'll try to compare it to an image captured with the use a cheap $125 300-1000mm f/5.6-f/11 lens sourced from ebay .. use your imagination!

We've all seen the posts, a million times over(well I have at least) ... "should I get one of these 100-1000mm f/5.6-f/16 lenses on ebay selling for $99 with free postage" ... etc, etc ..... and the resounding consensus is always no! Why? Because we know, with 99.9% certainty, that this lens is bound to be rubbish and not even useful as a doorstop.

Nikon haven't said that you need to spend up big money on their gear to effect better quality images. This train of thought is an interpretation of the quote by someone and then the rest of simply hopped up onto the bandwagon and followed suit, simply because it's multination corporation bashing. And we all love cutting down those tall poppies!

For a given brief the photographer should have access to the right tools for the job to produce images effectively and efficiently. If not there is a very low probability that they will be able to produce repeatable results. We all know this, and we all seem to aspire to bigger grander and higher quality lenses and cameras to achieve our aims.
And yet, when the large multinational corporation says this, puts it down on 'paper' they get flak for it!!

[Lance B]

I would have said complete truth, but then again this is just my thoughts based on what the quote says.
The problem that's happened here is that (as per usual with the human race) they've placed their own interpretation of what's been said.

In a literal translation, basically the quote reads that a photographer is limited by the gear that they use, which turns out to be a 100% factually correct statement.
There is no comment made in the quote that one photographer is better than another because they use better gear.
There is no reference to other manufacturers gear(nee lenses) being inferior or any of these kinds of implications.. just the fact that a photographer is capable of capturing better images with the use of better quality gear.

They said that using higher quality lenses will get you higher quality results.
To me, I see this as: if you want higher quality Macro images, don't go for the Nikon 105mm VR Micro.. get the Sigma 150mm Macro lens instead. It will provide higher quality images with more detail to begin with, and is cheaper to purchase!

Hmmm, I don't know about that! Photozone's test of the 105 f2.8 VR Micro seems to have a very slightly higher resolution than the Sigma 150 f2.8 macro. However, the difference is negligible and they both get 4.5 stars for optical quality, 4.5 stars for mechanical quality and it is only the cheaper price of the Sigma that gets it 5 stars over the Nikon's 4.5 stars. They are both highly recommended by Photozone.

If you want an image of the moon with detail.. real detail, then don't even think about a 200-600mm f/5.6-8 Ebay lens, you need something of higher quality.
This could simply be a Sigma 150-500mm, or 50-500mm, or a Tamron 70-200 + 2xTC, or better yet a Nikon/Canon 600mm f/4 or whatever else is financially attainable.
Simple fact is that a better quality product will give a better quality result. In general a better quality product simply costs more than the lower quality products.

Nowhere does it state that to get good results you need top shelf first party manufacturer gear!!
Any notion that this was said in the quote, is an interpretation by others!

I'll use Lance's example image here, and we'll try to compare it to an image captured with the use a cheap $125 300-1000mm f/5.6-f/11 lens sourced from ebay .. use your imagination!

We've all seen the posts, a million times over(well I have at least) ... "should I get one of these 100-1000mm f/5.6-f/16 lenses on ebay selling for $99 with free postage" ... etc, etc ..... and the resounding consensus is always no! Why? Because we know, with 99.9% certainty, that this lens is bound to be rubbish and not even useful as a doorstop.

Nikon haven't said that you need to spend up big money on their gear to effect better quality images. This train of thought is an interpretation of the quote by someone and then the rest of simply hopped up onto the bandwagon and followed suit, simply because it's multination corporation bashing. And we all love cutting down those tall poppies!

For a given brief the photographer should have access to the right tools for the job to produce images effectively and efficiently. If not there is a very low probability that they will be able to produce repeatable results. We all know this, and we all seem to aspire to bigger grander and higher quality lenses and cameras to achieve our aims.
And yet, when the large multinational corporation says this, puts it down on 'paper' they get flak for it!!

[arthurking83]

one of the problems with relying on pure data from review sites such as PZ is that it's not always indicative of what a lens my be truly like. I have the 105, and I have played with the 150 sigma and have a few sample images, and the few brief images I got with the sigma look more promising. Of course I am referring to close up photos. I think that at close up distances the sigma is better. All PS tests are made at close to or at infinity focus, the have no dedicated macro testing method!
Nothing really wrong with the 105VR, it's just that there are better alternatives available for macro.

[Lance B]

one of the problems with relying on pure data from review sites such as PZ is that it's not always indicative of what a lens my be truly like. I have the 105, and I have played with the 150 sigma and have a few sample images, and the few brief images I got with the sigma look more promising. Of course I am referring to close up photos. I think that at close up distances the sigma is better. All PS tests are made at close to or at infinity focus, the have no dedicated macro testing method!
Nothing really wrong with the 105VR, it's just that there are better alternatives available for macro.

Not dismissing the Sigma and it is definitely not coming from any belief that I think Nikon is superior because it is a Nikon, but there are very few alternatives for Nikon that I have seen that are actually better than the Nikon 105. Different, yes, but not actually better per se and I think this might be what you may have seen with the Sigma as it is a 150mm lens not a 105mm lens and therefore you get a differing perspective and f2.8 on 150mm as opposed to f2.8 on 105mm which can impart a different look especially through the VF due to a shallowere DOF. I have shot with quite a few macros and the 105 is definitely the best for overall IQ. Researching and reading many comments on the two, the consensus is that they are both excellent and there is no difference as far as sharpness, which is borne out by the PZ tests, and it really comes down to personal preference for focal length, whether you need VR and if you are going to use the lens for both macro and other more "normal" shooting like portraiture etc.

[arthurking83]

the differences in DOF is only an issue for subject matter that is further away(ie., not close to or approaching the macro realm anyhow).
At macro level DOF is the same irrespective of focal length.
I used to think that Nikon basically made unbeatable lenses if they had a gold ring around their filter threads too .. but Bjorn Rorslett then suddenly came to my rescue, when I found his rating site.
He's writings on the 105VR are not very favourable(as a macro lens), and I thought I was simply expecting too much from a lens. Maybe I have a less than ideal copy, but then again my lens is excellent when not focused at infinity(of course dependent on my ability at the time of exposure).

But when I did end up getting mine, it wasn't merely for macro subjects, it was also about easier to achieve close focused subject matter(ie. not exactly macro, but not far off) and portraits, because of a post on DPR once convinced me that the bokeh of this lens is as good as it gets too .... then again so is the Tammy 90 and subsequently the 150 Sigma too. Originally the Sigma didn't have OS, but now I read that the newer version does.
I got mine as more of an all rounder lens.. so I'm happy with the lens, and probably never release it ... I'm just not overly excited by it's macro ability.

[Bennymiata]

The new Sigma 150mm macro with OS is definitely better than the old version, and from my own Canon 60mm macro, and the times I've used the Canon 100mm macros, the new Sigma beats them hands down, especially in colour and contrast.

There is a definite feeling out there that the Canon/Nikon lenses are better than the aftermarket lenses, and one of my brothers-in-law definitely thought so, until he started to borrow some of my lenses and found out that some of the aftermarket lenses are as good, if not better than the OEM lenses, for a fraction of the cost.

Having said that, I do agree that using high quality lenses and bodies will get you a better quality picture than poor quality items will, but you don't always need to get OEM lenses to get that high quality image you've always wanted.
There are alternatives that perform extremely well, you just have to pick and choose them a little more carefully.