Nice but incremental progress. I only wish this level of tracking capabilities, FPS and high iso performance was available in a body of half the price, size and weight... Probably it is not possible yet but Sony seems to be going there albeit the A7RII attacks the pro/premium price too.
Cihangir Gzey: Ball bearings used to avoid zoom creeping in long term usage and bigger screws are used for reliable long term operation. These items don't even needed to be mentioned considering the price of the end product. BUT, we are all so fed up to see disposable products which give away soul during warranty or just after warranty (car, camera, TV, phone, etc.), we get amazed when we see a product which has been put into shape properly. We need to see similar level of engineering quality from their cheaper lenses as well. After all, the main cost of these units are GLASS!When you guess the labor cost of a glass element (which you don't see any here apart from the front element), these bearings, gaskets, injection moulded plastic parts mean nothing! :) Well done anyway.
Using plastic instead of metal, using plastic gearing or having 3 screws instead of 6 is relatively understandable in the consumer, cost-driven product line. But in prosumer/pro line, I do consider the arguments of weight reduction by using plastic purposive and calculated. If plastics are used here (i.e. in more or less critical parts), they are used for the sake of price reasons above all and not reduction in weight.
Nanospeed1: I have been a long-term Nikon user and I´ve got to admit I have gathered a lot of reputation for the latest Canon lenses (...and not just because of this particular teardown). Real innovation, real shift up in quality, really solid construction inside even where you cannot see it.... Yes, more expensive than it used to be but after seeing teardowns like this, I have to say - to my own surprise - I would pay that to Canon. Unlike Nikon's latest 24-70VR etc. It seems to me indeed that Nikon dares to demand higher and higher premium prices with their latest lenses but offers little to no added value in optical qualitites/innovations :-/. (No Canon-Nikon flame please, I´m talking just about "products A" vs. "products B").
@Mike: As for the materials used, of course the 1.4 Nikon primes feel and are solid. Nobody would buy it if they were flimsy plastic for thousand of dollars... But unfortunately it doesn' tell much about the inner construction and engineering but I believe it wouldn't be underengineered.
What bothers me is this (for example):
1) New Canon 35/1.4 vs. new Nikon 35/1.4 prime - almost the same price (actually, will be the same price soon as Nikon plans 30% price increase on lenses since 2016 here in Europe):http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=750&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
2) New Nikon 58/1.4 vs. new Sigma 50/1.4 (1/2 chaper):http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=925&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Sorry to hurt you but this is not OK for me.
emfor: Cudos to Roger and Aaron.I am very excited about the teardown of the Sigma Art.I dind't find it at the lens rentals page.
Thank you. For everything you are doing - very interesting stuff and data!!
Roger, roger that! I think many of us are very interested esp. how Sigma ART line is engineered!
Exactly. Very good observation. Unfortunately, the key terms in today's production are 'product lifecycle', 'planned obsolescence' and 'moral lifetime'. In other words, buy, buy, buy, do not repair, throw away (ASAP), buy new. Ignore what you really need, what you can REALLY make use of. I have nothing against it, some people really work that way but the thing is that you have practically no other option today. For example, all I ever need is 12mpx sensor, usable ISO 6400 and 12EV dynamic range. I want that in a durable body that will last decades (and for that, I would be willing to pay extra), I really do not care that in say 10 years there will be 80mpx+ sensors with usable ISO400 000... But when my Nikon body fails is 10 years or so, they will tell me anyway "no spare parts are available for your model anymore, buy new."
Yes, precisely. For what I/we know now, the optical qualities - while not really 'bad' - of the newer expensive/pro Nikon Lenses certainly leave something to be desired (35/1.4, 58/1.4, 24-70VR, 16-80DX etc.). And there has been nothing among the new Nikon lenses that leaves me really impressed regarding the optics.... (last time I was with the 14-24/2.8 but that has been quite a long time now....). Now there are the other areas: copy consistency (Canon certainly better with their new lenses) and construction/mechanical quality (here I do not have enough data to say for sure but I've got the feeling that Nikon is not playing first fiddle here either...).
You know, in the past it was quite the opposite: Nikon's 24-70, 14-24 etc., Canon used to have the older, weak and terribly copy-inconsistent 24-70, weak wide angle zooms, older primes.... but apparently (IMHO) they have hit all the right buttons and head the lens division exactly the right direction. Doubt that a bit with Nikon...
I have been a long-term Nikon user and I´ve got to admit I have gathered a lot of reputation for the latest Canon lenses (...and not just because of this particular teardown). Real innovation, real shift up in quality, really solid construction inside even where you cannot see it.... Yes, more expensive than it used to be but after seeing teardowns like this, I have to say - to my own surprise - I would pay that to Canon. Unlike Nikon's latest 24-70VR etc. It seems to me indeed that Nikon dares to demand higher and higher premium prices with their latest lenses but offers little to no added value in optical qualitites/innovations :-/. (No Canon-Nikon flame please, I´m talking just about "products A" vs. "products B").
Nanospeed1: Guys, here is a petition for Sony for the uncompressed RAW implementation.... Please sign it if that's a critical issue for you (as it certainly is for me!)
p.s. to censor: Yes, I posted it under the other article too but the more signatures, the more voice and (hopefully) more happy Sony-photographers in the future! :-)
to Everlast66: I didn't start the petition, I just joined and keep spreading it. Yes, David Etchell of Imaging-resource.com (and other known journalists and photographers) has already confirmed the A7R2 has got the same compressed RAW as its predecessor did :-(. p.s. yes, uncompressed or lossless compression
Guys, here is a petition for Sony for the uncompressed RAW implementation.... Please sign it if that's a critical issue for you (as it certainly is for me!)
Here is a petition for Sony for the uncompressed RAW implementation.... Please sign it if that's a critical issue for you (as it certainly is for me!)
As the guy below in the discussuion puts it, in DOF & bokeh area, FF advantage is very significant - I actually didn't expect that much difference in favor of FF...even canon at F2.0, expecting similar dof, it has much better bokeh , more blure, more pop, more 3D photo than Fuji at F1.4.... FF rules but sure it is not the holy grail for everyone. Those who want light weight and small equipment at the expense of the indisputable advantages in DOF, bokeh (also high-ISO quality and resolution) may prefer Fuji (and they got it right for sure) but for the most demanding phorographers, full frame is the choice. Actually, that was the reason Nikon finally turned to full frame long time ago too despite their early claims that "APS-C is the future for us"..... ;-).
@JustaPhotographer LOL :-))) Of course :-))
@Jeremyclarke: Yes, basically I share most of what you have written. That´s why I´m fond of what Fuji is offering on the market. Great fast lenses, lower weight, sweet spot for many, indeed. Still... It is kind of similar to megapixels and dynamic range race: 21mpx/12EV vs. 36mpx/14,8EV.... For me, that is totally negligible difference not worth any extra investment. For my friend shooting landscapes (http://www.horolezec.cz/gallery.htm), it is huge difference worth every dollar. But I agree, this kind of target group may be about that 10% you mentioned.... but when the 10% can see the benefit and value of anything pushing the creative possibilitites even further, the weight, size and price issue are all relative to them.
@JustaPhotographer: Just always amusing when someone is lacking arguments and so turns it to personal side... :-) Thank you for your wish, I wish you the same. Always remember that we are both part of the same "photo guild" so we should keep certan guild' s pride to keep the discussion on the factual level... So take it easy :-). BTW, I have got my own website with many photos and I have regular exhibitions too... But of course I´m not sending links to someone who is so eager to bash just anything from me ;-)))
Fortunately, your style of shooting and your needs are not a meaningful proof of anything. I have sent some links to great photographers who demonstrate the creative aspects of shallow DoF on full frame more than enough. APS-C couldn' t do the job here in the same way. And that is not "1 inch difference" at all... ;-)
When you don't shoot closeups and step back, there is visible difference between say FF+35/1.4 lens and APS-C+23/1.4... Also between 85/1.2+FF and APS-C+56/1.2 etc. But as I wrote, as you get closer, the benefits of shallow DoF given by the FF+fast lens is not that important of course... But this is the basic theory of what DoF is dependent on... you certainly know it well, do you? ;-)
@ AlexRuiz: Just to fill in your comment, I do like Fuji new ecosystem a lot (I mean esp. X-T1 + fast lenses), it is such a great offer in many ways and it eliminates the need of FF for large group of photographers. This group really gets a lot for their money, no doubt about it. I´m just saying still it is not a full substitude for FF benefits... for those you can take a proper advantage of it only, of course.
@Just a Photographer:
1)You haven't read properly what I wrote and really didn' t get my point. I never said what you are implying and reacting to.
2) I disagree. The shallow DoF is as important as the light and composition. But for certain type of photography only - again, you misunderstood my post. Tell it to Elena Shumilova, Ryan Brenizer etc. that there is something wrong with their skills because they are playing a jedi mind cheap tricks to their audience... ;-)
3) "A FF prime is seldomly fully opened solely for creating DOF" LOL, nonsense.
4) "It all can be done with an APS-C and 4/3 system as well". Nonsense. To some degree yes (longer telephotos or closeups) but in many cases it is impossible (i.e. 1.4-1.2 lenses on FF).
5) "Its the photographer that creates the picture and if he can't make the picture he/she wants its seldomly the gear that was at fault." Very misleading and not thought out. The sensor size and esp.the lenses chosen and are very important.
Or look at this woman's pictures and imagine they were shot with less shallow DoF (she is using 5D mkII + 135mm/f2.0 + some blurr in post-processing):
This is just a random example, I can post more pictures like this to demonstrate the advantages of fullf frame "rendering". I can´t help it, indeed. The creative advanage of FF is indisputable to me. There are some areas where FF equipment doesn' t quite make sense (or doesn't bring real advantage). But in general - almost in every discipline you can find a full frame solution which can do better than aps-c or m4/3 equvalents. It may not be worth the size, weight and investment for sure but it is true (the best (still relatively portable) resolution - full frame, the best low light performance - full frame, the best dynamic range - full frame, the best pro bodies build for durability and speed - full frame, the best lenses - for full frame..)
BTW, I know quite a lot of pros who do shoot wide-open. :-)
to Whyamihere: Well, I don't mean to "defend" FF as a muslim fundamentalist does with his faith but I have also went through many "thinking eras", once being blowned away by shallow DOF, then leaving it and focusig more on light, perspective and the whole scene but then... then returned back as a shallow DOF advocate.
The thing is it is such a strong creative aspect in many ways that the images of those who master it properly (together with the other important aspects making a greas photos) have simply almost always more impact in every way. Of course I admit 1)It may be subjective perception 2)Shallow DoF "impact" works that way mostly in people's photography with me.
For example, go through www.stevehuffphoto.com pages, there are many great (people's) photos with extremely shallow DoF which always works much better IMHO than when it is missing... But again, I'm certainly not saying the shallow DoF is the key essence for creating a great picture, not at all :-)