It takes a while to get going and he really over explains the how and why of it but, the examples and comparisons seem solid to me. Many of the technical explanations are way above my paygrade but all in all it seems to be a fair comparison. Any Canon/Sony users have an opinion?
The Nikon has cheapness going for it, but it's not difficult to figure out why.
I'm not seeing any of those as desirable personally compared to R5 II, a7RV and Z8.
EB-1 wrote:
The Nikon has cheapness going for it, but it's not difficult to figure out why.
I'm not seeing any of those as desirable personally compared to R5 II, a7RV and Z8.
EBH
Those cameras are great if you have a need for their highly advanced features. I personally never use the video features of any of my cameras other than my cell phone. I'm using a Z5 now and it serves me well for what I do but, I could however, use the faster FPS and improved focusing of the Z5ii. I will eventually upgrade to the Z5ii after it has been out for a while and most if not all of the bugs get corrected.
"The Nikon has cheapness going for it, but it's not difficult to figure out why."
Why?
I find camera comparisons using different lenses rather uninformative. If I'm willing to go to that length, I'll choose a lens that's available for all three mounts.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I find camera comparisons using different lenses rather uninformative. If I'm willing to go to that length, I'll choose a lens that's available for all three mounts.
There are no lenses that are available for all three mounts.
Sure you could adapt, say, a Canon EF or Nikon F mount lens, but that has its own wrinkle of adapter tolerance, designed filter stack and so on.
Jman13 wrote:
There are no lenses that are available for all three mounts.
Well, then that's just not possible in this situation. In my opinion, it's a joke to pit a Z 1.8 50 S against an FE 1.8 50 for such a comparison and then draw whatever conclusions from it.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I find camera comparisons using different lenses rather uninformative. If I'm willing to go to that length, I'll choose a lens that's available for all three mounts.
The problem is that it's not a camera test anymore, but a system test.
EB-1 wrote:
The problem is that it's not a camera test anymore, but a system test.
EBH
Well, if I make huge prints with the goal of finding out if there are any differences, I'm not comparing apples to oranges. If comparing the significantly newer, larger, heavier, and three times as expensive Nikkor with the ancient Sony is valid, then comparing it with the 1.4 GM would be just as valid, because the price difference is the same and both lenses are comparably modern. Simply focusing on the f/1.8 aperture is inappropriate in this regard.
And as for the "system," one of its advantages is the ability to freely choose lenses. And I choose the best option on the one hand and the worst option on the other? A strange approach, I must say.
imho the comparisons using 105/120 zooms are a bit more even handed then with the 50mm. All 3 lenses are within $300 with the Nikkor being the least expensive. You have to remember that they took the same shot with each camera, blew it up to 1 meter print NO ONE could see any applicable difference.
LostLensCap wrote:
imho the comparisons using 105/120 zooms are a bit more even handed then with the 50mm. All 3 lenses are within $300 with the Nikkor being the least expensive. You have to remember that they took the same shot with each camera, blew it up to 1 meter print NO ONE could see any applicable difference.
Which is interesting because in all the technical comparisons I have seen the Nikon is way better than the other 2, showing at least 15~20% more resolution at most apertures/focal lengths despite having 10% more range and being cheaper. I have basically never seen such a gap in image quality btwn modern lenses. It usually takes 2 generations. What Nikon has achieved with this lens is simply incredible.
EB-1 wrote:
The Nikon has cheapness going for it, but it's not difficult to figure out why.
I'm not seeing any of those as desirable personally compared to R5 II, a7RV and Z8.
EBH
But it is being compared to the R6II and a7IV in this video isn’t it?
bernardl wrote:
But it is being compared to the R6II and a7IV in this video isn’t it?
Cheers,
Bernard
It is being compared with entry FF cameras from Canon and Sony that have similar spects and price. What would be the point of comparing it with flagship models when they are clearly aimed at a different group of shooters. The entry level cameras are clearly aimed at shooter like ME. I don't need advanced video or more than 24mp for what I do. Auto focus, IQ, ergonomics, and reasonable FPS are important to me but my cell phone meets my video needs just fine. And, the models that come after entry level FF seen to focus more on video than stills.
I mean, tbh, the R6 II and A7IV are about to get an update. I believe the R6 III will be VERY close if not a nudge above the Z6 III. Pretty sure the R6 III will also have 6K/60p RAW and a host of R1/R3 features as well making it a very strong competitor, albeit, at $2500+.. The A7V too will be an exciting release. Highly doubt Sony will put internal RAW recording, but im sure it'll be a much faster sensor and again, a host of A1 II and/or A9 III features. The competition is going to heat up in this segment.
