ChrisMak
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #15 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ?? | |
billsnature wrote:
As someone who did spend the money on a 600mm PF I have to disagree with some aspects of this.
I will agree that content is king, technique is critical and post processing will cover a lot of sins committed by the equipment and the photographer. That doesn't mean that other aspects are "just a bonus".
I do value the reduction in size and weight. That said, if there wasn't a meaningful improvement in color, contrast and sharpness, I don't think I would have bought it. It had to be both (or all) aspects, or I wouldn't have bought it. I can get great images from the Sony A1 with the 200-600, but I see great improvement in the "pop" with the Z8/600PF combo.
Can I get 200-600 to "look like" the 600PF images? I guess that depends on your definition of "looks like". I see enough difference to matter to me. So, I would say no! Others may not agree which is fine. It's just like the zoom vs prime argument or the 85 1.2 or 1.4 vs a lowly 85mm f1.8 argument. I have no problem with the IQ of a 16-35 or a 24-70 where others would only use a prime. I would never buy a 85mm f1.2 or 1.4 but I respect that others will and probably a 135mm f1.8 to boot. For me the place to spend money on a prime is in the long telephoto area, not in wide to mid range area. Others may feel different. It's not snobbery, it is a question of what you value for yourself. If you believe that all lenses look alike, I guess we should all just be shooting a 28-200 and then just post processing to make them all look alike. Or even worse an iPhone....Show more →
I was wondering, have you also used the 180-600, and if so, is there a similar step up in "pop" as you described coming from the sony 200-600g?
I follow several image theads on the Nikon lenses, and I can see that the 180-600 doesn't have the "bite" and resolution of a lens like the 800PF, but the overall "look" of the 180-600 images continues to positively impress me for a zoom of its price class.
I can understand people with the more expensive lenses not shying away from using the 180-600, because even if there is a loss in contrast or resolution, the presentation of the image in things like color and definition and tonality is still at a very high level.
That's just not the case for all zooms, at least not to the degree of the Nikon zoom.
My favorite Z telephoto lens has to be the 800PF, even if I have not used one.
I am not sure there is much sense in getting rid of my Sony 600GM at a substantial loss, and it does do certain things better than the 800PF no doubt (like shooting at 600mm), but I would love to use a Z8 with 800PF, and I have said before, if I were to start from scratch, I would buy the Z8 with 800PF and either the 600PF, or 180-600.
The natural and easy on the eyes color rendering that Nikon has achieved with its Z system is highly compelling to me for wildlife and birding.
I know nowadays everything is measured by how sharp the image is, but I am sensitive to overall look and the quality of colors and tonality, and Nikon solidly leads the pack for me.
I don't want to hit on Sony, the 600GM produces amazing images on the A1, but Nikon knows the art of capturing the mood of a wildlife scene and draw me in in a way Sony just doesn't do.
That has its merits, it's not all about sharpness.
|
Yes Robert, have you ever noticed there's a direct correlation between the length of a photo description and the price tag of the equipment used ? How many times have we seen " shot with the Sony A1 and 600 F4 @ f4, ISO 400, Auto WB, 1/1600, April 2, 2024, hand held, wearing Fruit of the Loom underoos etc. Then you look at the shot and think; yeah, so what