CanadaMark
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.8 #10 · p.8 #10 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread | |
Alistair1 wrote:
WRT images posted online, poor technical quality is surprisingly common. Even in threads from the 400/2.8 and 600/4 you will find images that don't look technically great. It is due to post processing choices, sizing, poor light, personal tolerance of IQ, web compression, viewing device etc. etc. You can see examples of that in this thread which you have already noted.
I came here to say essentially the same thing but I see you have already brought it up. I have a hard time understanding why someone might look at a soft image from any modern lens these days with little to no context and think that is what typical results will be like. Like many Z lenses, the 180-600 also has a predecessor, the 200-500. So far every Z lens has been materially better than it's predecessor, and it would make no sense for Nikon to update that lens with something that performed worse - if they did, it would probably be an industry first. The 'minimum' level of image quality we get these days is very high from virtually all modern lenses.
If you are viewing random photos online trying to judge the quality of a lens, the only reasonable way to go about it is to judge based on the best ones you see, not the worst ones you see. Yes these lenses will have some sample variation, but one lens isn't going to be soft and the other sharp (unless severely deflective) - sample variation typically manifests itself in minor differences you might be able to see while pixel-peeping after a careful controlled comparison between two copies. With Z lenses in particular I get the impression there is less sample variation than what exists with F mount lenses or third party lenses. Gone are the days where people are buying 3 or 4 copies of every lens and returning all but the best one, and some of that likely has to do with the broad switch to mirrorless bodies as well, eliminating the camera body's AF precision and focus shift from the equation.
I like car analogies as I think most people can relate, so if driver A and driver B both take the same car around a track and post dramatically different lap times, nobody is looking at the slower lap time and saying to themselves "wow I thought that car would be faster" ignoring the better result. It just doesn't make any sense and I can't think of many products that are judged by their worst results rather than their best, especially when there are so many unknown variables.
If we chose to make judgements or purchase decisions based on the soft images, then nobody in their right mind would ever pay up for a 600/4, 400/2.8, Z9, A1, etc. as I have seen plenty of images from those products that I think many would consider throw-always posted on various forums. Some of these images are even posted by the user as an apparent testament to how good the lens/camera is. With a wide variety of 'good and bad' images posted from these combinations online, I don't think it's very hard to figure out which ones are more representative of the actual capabilities of the equipment.
There are a laundry list of variables, often not disclosed, that are behind every image posted. User skill/technique, RAW conversion method, processing technique, technical understanding of the equipment, environmental factors such as heat haze or light quality, maybe a poor quality filter is being used on the lens, and even the hosting method of the final image for display on a forum. If any one of those things is affecting the image in a way that the user may not realize, then it's not a representative sample. User technique and processing are probably the two biggest ones. User technique is self explanatory, but on the processing side, it doesn't take much to make the same image look dramatically different.
To help illustrate my point, here is a quick & dirty comparison using 100% crops of an old image I took (to be clear this is NOT a 180-600 image) and all I did was run the exact same NEF through 4 different RAW converters, I didn't move any sliders or touch anything else which is why there are exposure differences. The differences here are already more than what some are comparing the 180-600 to, and there are still other variables that haven't even been introduced yet:
Looking at the above, I don't think it would be difficult to convince someone those were test results from 4 different lenses. Some careful PP work might bring them all roughly in line with each other, but how could we ever know what is and isn't being done? Now add in all the other variables and that is why in my opinion it's not a good idea to judge a lens or make a purchase decision based on a few poor images.
One other thing I will point out for those making comparisons to the Sony 200-600, at most common shooting distances, the Sony is not 600mm, so you would need to drop the Nikon 180-600 down to match the focal length an accurate comparison, and the 180-600 performs slightly better at ~500mm than it does maxed out at 600mm. With the Sony near MFD you are only getting about 530mm out of it.
If you are someone that likes looking at charts, which I do as well provided they are done properly, the only ones that really matter are from Lens Rentals. They are the only lens review outlet I am aware of that has the resources to use ~10 copies of every lens and a ~$200K optical bench to remove both the camera & sensor from the equation to objectively compare lenses across brands. Unfortunately they haven't done any of those comparisons lately that I have seen, but I used to enjoy reading those. Or you could always just rent the lens yourself and see if you like it 
|
? 
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kYqEfc6PCWYKzbegFUGVcF-1200-80.png">