Medium and high end digital should not cut corners

I suspect that you are at least partially right, but I don't personally have sufficient experience to be sure.

However, I don't think the camera and lens manufacturers are to blame. I think they make the products that they think will sell best and many photographers now want bells and whistles more than they want underlying image quality. Expensive lenses only sell if they are superfast, and it simply isn't feasible to produce such lenses of the quality you want.

It is also made more difficult by the high rate of advance of the technology, so most consumers don't expect to buy a camera or lens to keep for a lifetime, but expect to replace it in a few years, or a decade at most.

The bottom line to most photographers (and I include myself) is that they can now produce much better photos in a wider range of circumstances than they ever could in the days of film.

vepar said:

I didn't understand OP.

Click to expand...

You didn't.

vepar said:

Was it something like greedy capitalists produce lenses which have barrel distortion, and there for raw converers clip borders while correcting distortions, but sigma 12-24 mk I is distortion free? Did I got the point of OP or did I get it wrong? Is this conspiracy theory about barrel distortion?

Click to expand...

No. This conspiracy theory is about cutting corners in order to make bigger profits. Barrel distortion is one of the consequences.

keepreal said:

I refer to every serious, sane, balanced, impartial and detailed review of pro and semi-pro equipment and a common sense analysis, rather than trying unnecessarily to apply advanced mathematics and statistics to it with a sample running into thousands. I will not name names because the only exceptions to the rule would be superficial nonsense sucking up for their slice.

I am only talking of reviews In English, but I do not imagine that foreign tongues translate any less into a rip-off.

Does that answer your question? If not that's your loss because I am not interested in an exchange of verbal abuse.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Why can't you just include a few reputable links? Apparently they're everywhere. I don't know what to search for, since most reviews I've seen are somewhat biased, so since you've clearly already done the work, it would be a real time saver to just provide some evidence.

I'm not saying I disagree with your point. I'm on the fence, and I'm just looking for you to bring me over to your side.

I want it light, reasonably priced, and need manufactures to make the compromises I want, not the ones their experience indicates are reasonable.

Me thinks you aren't aware that almost any raw developer can correct vignetting and distortion. As can many other high-quality software programs. Today's lenses are better than ever. That's why so is so much pressure on Nikon and Canon to update their older lenses. Because the newer ones are better.

If you continue to expect manufacturers to solve your unique requirements rather than solve them on your own, I'm afraid you'll continue to be disappointed.

I cannot argue with as single word, not an alternative view to mine so much as complementary, explaining why things are as they are. However I think it is a pity.

The public only gets as good as the majority wants or deserves, a bit like VW making a defeat mechanism rather than genuinely clean, economical cars.

tko said:

I want it light, reasonably priced, and need manufactures to make the compromises I want, not the ones their experience indicates are reasonable

If you continue to expect manufacturers to solve your unique requirements rather than solve them on your own, I'm afraid you'll continue to be disappointed.

Click to expand...

You are right. I continue to be disappointed, so devise the best I can achieve in spite of that.

You appear to have support for the point of view that the market gets what it deserves. I would he happier if the segment that wanted a little better also was catered for, albeit at a little more cost.

I have a somewhat similar history to Keepreal in that I am in my 70s, have been an advanced amateur all of my adult live, and transitioned from a wet B&W/color darkroom to digital. Here is how we differ:

1. In the early 1990s I saw an early inkjet print, saw the future, gave away my darkroom equipment, and bought a film scanner.

2. Around the year 2000 I transitioned from film to digital captures. A year or so later bought an inkjet printer and the rest is history.

3. If you want good edge sharpness with wide angle lenses designed for rangefinder cameras, you need a sensor designed for that purpose. Even then, with full-frame sensors, the task is difficult (ask Leica). Besides Leica, as far as I know the only manufacturer who produced such a camera was Ricoh with the GXR model when equipped with the "M Module". It was APSc but was able to very good results with rangefinder lenses and a 12 MP sensor.

4. As near as I can tell, camera manufacturers are not exactly rolling in dough. The GXR is no longer made, almost certainly because not enough people bought it. At this level capitalism works very well at getting most people what they want. If a product is not available it is very probably because not enough people are willing to pay for it.

If the manufacturers won't produce products that meet your standards, at a price you are willing to pay, don't buy them. Use old gear. Give up photography.

Or, go on a hunger strike until your concerns are taken seriously.

Nokeepreal said:

vepar said:

I didn't understand OP.

Click to expand...

You didn't.

keepreal said:

Was it something like greedy capitalists produce lenses which have barrel distortion, and there for raw converers clip borders while correcting distortions, but sigma 12-24 mk I is distortion free? Did I got the point of OP or did I get it wrong? Is this conspiracy theory about barrel distortion?

Click to expand...

No. This conspiracy theory is about cutting corners in order to make bigger profits. Barrel distortion is one of the consequences.

Click to expand...

Now I understand your point of view, but I don't see any conspiracy here... It is marketing trend as an answer to demands of (most) customers. I see the pattern in your reasoning if I compare for instance my nikkors 50mm 1.8g and 1.8d, or micro nikkor 60mm 2.8 g and 55mm 2.8 ais. Older are better corrected for vignetting and distortion, and newer are sharper in corners and wider apertures. In digital era photographers more often care less about vignetting and distortion compared to analog era, because it is easy fix in pp. In your line of thought, I find silly marketing decision to remove aperture ring from macro lenses...

But all lenses are compromise and newer lenses are generally better. You can always opt for used old gear which you prefer and as bonus have it for cheap.

richiebee said:

I'm not saying I disagree with your point. I'm on the fence, and I'm just looking for you to bring me over to your side.

Click to expand...

I aplogise. I misread your earlier post as sarcasm.

I mostly rely upon photozone.de for lenses. Sometimes ephotozine.com is quite good and imagingresource.com too. I do not like DxOMark.com because they hide the facts in too many detailed figures and their overall ratings are about as much use as DP Review's.

A lot of people think kenrockwell.com is a bit of a nutter, he can be but occasionally he says the unthinkable where others don't, like overone of the recent digital Leicas not being as good in some respects as an earlier model.

If I understood MFTs and what of real use they are supposed to tell you, I might use other sources, but either they are beyond me or a cunning subterfuge and I have no idea which.

With all of them, I feel you have to read between the lines. DP Review is excellent for factual information, such as the features the new Nikon D500 has and where all the buttons are and what they do. For an assessment, I like them a lot less, so I look elsewhere for that. Usually it is a question of aggregating from as many sources as possible, often even ones unknown to me and hoping I am not too far off the mark.

My guiding premise is that if almost everyone says it is the best thing since sliced bread, then it might be good. If a small but significant minority criticises, even mildly, then I prefer to leave alone just to be safe. Ultimately it is just guesswork.

For example, everyone says the Sony AR II is leading edge, perhaps more than any other camera other than mid-size. I tend to believe that, but would not believe it if they said its EVF was first class, because I would interpret that to mean it is first class as far as EVFs go, stilll vastly inferior to OVF unless explicitly they said how and why it is on a par. Also, at one point I was tempted to consider one nevertheless, so I downloaded the AR7 II manual and thought it was a load of cr*p. I probably could manage in spite of that, but wondered if that told me something significant about Sony, who could not be bothered to do a better job for such an expensive camera. Also, Sony are so into everything, just as are Panasonic and are relatively new into photography, that that is a worry too. They may be perfectly fine, but who's to say?

vepar said:

Older are better corrected for vignetting and distortion, and newer are sharper in corners and wider apertures... it is easy fix in pp.

Click to expand...

A lot of validity in that.

Richard Frederick said:

1. In the early 1990s I saw an early inkjet print, saw the future, gave away my darkroom equipment, and bought a film scanner.

2. Around the year 2000 I transitioned from film to digital captures. A year or so later bought an inkjet printer and the rest is history.

Click to expand...

In my case I went to an exhibition of Charlie Waite's landscapes in London 2002; saw his huge digital prints from a Hasselblad using film. Even managed to exchange a few words with him. He is famous in England, as one of the best landscape photographers in the country. His prints were not at all sharp but did not need to be. Some of them were beautiful pictures.

So immediately after that, I bought a good film scanner and an A3 printer using pigment inks. When I abandoned film, as I felt I had to as I explained at the outset, in 2009, I took the digital plunge full time. Since then I can do a lot better and a lot easier but I still hanker after a super wide angle that in all the regards that matter to me surpasses my modest, by present day standards, Sigma 12-24mm.

Richard Frederick said:

3. If you want good edge sharpness with wide angle lenses designed for rangefinder cameras, you need a sensor designed for that purpose.

Click to expand...

And there isn't one. Nor is there a digital design for a very wide angle that good, either. I am sure my only option is a Leica M film camera and the Tri-Elmar or something similar. However, I would not be happy spending half the money. I could afford to splash out just the once but think that would be too much of an indulgence. Besides, as Charlie Waite amply demonstrates, if the picture is good enough, everything else pales into insignificance.

Well not entirely, but certainly up to a point.

This is certainly true for me, though I would welcome a chance to buy some high quality small "slow" primes in the f/2.8 - f/1.8 ranges that were so common on film. Pentax has a few and Fuji seems to be moving in that direction, which is promising.

As I am grossly over-weight and mildly have diabetes, I have been unsuccessfully trying to lose weight for years. However I will definitely be dead before any photographic manufacturer produces what I want, strike or no strike.

I find it strange that people do not understand that a person like me with strongly held opinions cannot at the same time be thoroughly open to alternative points of view. In fact I always am anxious to discover what others think. It is not a question of having my own way, as sometimes many people seem to imagine.

So, no need for sarcasm or ridicule and not much (so far) this time. Just a few interesting observations from other people, exactly as I had in mind.

So let's call it a day unless anyone has anything new and original to add. I feel that already a few good responses have given alternative angles to those I had thought of and make a lot of sense.

keepreal said:

Since the 2008 credit crunch the fat cats have raised their undeserved gains considerably, even with subsequent failures rather than successes, and the gap between the rich and poor is a lot wider than it was before. There is no reason the capable and the enterprising need so much money to have the spur to do useful things, but too many of them are just plain greedy, selfish and arrogant.Elton John, for example, spent half a million pounds Sterling on flowers in one year.

Click to expand...

Are we really comparing the camera manufacturers of this world with Elton John's flower habits?

You have high standards. Higher than the vast majority of photographers (especially me). So, for a camera company to design a kit to fit your needs would put either that company in the red or bankrupt you in affording such specialized gear. So, it is not quality cutting for profit making that causes these design issues, it is corporate survival. Kodak was a great company. Was. Nikon and others swim in dangerous seas with factories subject to earthquakes, recessions, and customers with varied demands. The D500 was apparently created due to relentless demand against Nikon's wishes. They relented to the market. Which is the only way you can get what you want. But, is there a loud enough market?

You are right. But that will not stop me being out of step.

We are comparing apples and oranges and observing the characteristics of fruit.

keepreal said:

You are right. But that will not stop me being out of step.

Click to expand...

Finding limits and feeling frustrated are not always the same thing. Sometimes, we work within the limitations of our gear and there find a creative opportunity. Good luck!

You might want to try some of the old Olympus 4/3 (not MFT) lenses with adapter on your MFT bodies.

Many of those older Olympus 4/3 lenses are telecentric. Many are superb lenses. I have the Olympus 4/3 12-60mm, which I use on my Panasonic bodies. It is one beautiful lens. It is also one big heavy mother. But IQ wise, it is superb.

There are some good deals out there if you hunt around, especially in the used market.