Ross Martin
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.8 #6 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon | |
gdanmitchell wrote:
We're on pretty much the same page here, I think. A lot of folks who go on and on (often in hyperbolic, black-and-white terms) about the theoretical differences between different models, brands, and types of gear would do well to check their biases against actual photographs, preferably large prints. I know that doing so has disabused me of some of the odd forumtography notions that I believed early on.
There's nothing quite like exhibiting in a show that includes beautiful prints made with everything from primes to zooms, film to digital, new to old gear, and formats ranging from MFT to LF to refocus things.
I still have a sticky old bias towards high quality, neutral lenses that don't require a ton of digital correction... but I also leaned that a lot of the theories about the awful effects of such corrections don't generally play out in the final results.
Since I'm here to scope out the world of Sony, with a possible (OK, likely... maybe even "almost certain") move to the brand before too long, I'm interested in both the more traditional options and those that may rely more on digital corrections, and how good photographers (based on your work, I include you in the group) use the gear....Show more →
Thank you for that kind word, Dan! I always enjoy your images and refined processing skills, and would love to see your prints in person.
I agree that the hyperbolic, black-and-white reactionary language is not helpful. There’s a lot of nuance that gets lost. When it comes to brands, camera models, and lenses, there are many ‘right’ answers rather than just one.
An example: I have the Sony 24-70/2.8 GMII which is one of the best performing midrange zooms on the market (the Nikon version I used is right up there also, and likely the Canon). Recently I picked up a used Sony 24-105/4 which is an eight year old design but is still in regular use by quite a few landscape pros such as Mads Peter Iversen, and I ran a careful tripod test side by side with my 24-70/2.8GMII on a scene that I test all my lenses on which features a variety of colors, textures, fine details, white tones, and shadows. My copy of the 24-105 shows sharpness across the full frame at every marked focal length and is very well centered, and scrutinizing 100% pixel view after standard Lightroom processing next to its much more expensive brother at f/8 where it will spend most of its life in my shooting, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to see any meaningful differences - both are excellent in terms of sharpness right into the furthest corners, corrected c/a and distortion, color rendition, and contrast. Of course the f/2.8 zoom is better at widest aperture and has its preferred usage. This evidence supports my experience that obtaining a good copy of a lens is often more important than the differences between two competing lenses that folks love to argue about on forums. My copy of the 24-105 has tested so well that it has now found a place in my backpack on my 2 to 3 month fall shooting trip I embark upon tomorrow.
(I did post images from this test in a different thread)
And one of the nice things about having 60mp’s is I have a 24-116mm in practice because of the available 1.1x crop factor when I may need it, compared to the 45mp sensors I was using previously. Is that a huge deal? No, but it is another piece of nuance that gets lost in the extremist forum banter.
|
...