CanadaMark
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread | |
duncang wrote:
CanadaMark wrote:
SCoombs wrote:
1bwana1 wrote:
Great images George. I really have a hard time imagining anyone thinking that they need sharper, better exposed images of birds that these. Great shots both static and in flight. I think images of this quality should make the vast majority of photographers happy as far as image quality is concerned.
So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.
I think these are very nice images, but let's not neglect that these are relatively low megapixel renders which force a relatively small size for viewing. Files like this are good for some things but thee's also value in having larger, higher resolution files and those are a lot more demanding on a lens and reveal deficiencies much more. For instance, the files shared here wouldn't make for good prints.
Now do the higher res versions look as sharp? There's no way to know unless they're shared.
Again, I like these photos and they give me a good impression of the lens. They certainly give me a good impression of the photographer! 
But as far as really judging the quality of image the lens can produce 3MP 96dpi files aren't going to give much insight. When viewed at a resolution sufficient to make a decent sized print they make look awful - or great! This is not meant to be critical of the decision to share the photos as they are, by the way. I think they're great and shared as is they are very nice in this thread. I'm commenting only on their value as "proof" of the lens' quality.
Many ~100% or heavy crops have already been posted in this thread and they are very sharp, despite the fact that no software even has profile support for the lens yet (meaning, it will only improve). There are at least two links in this thread to highly detailed controlled testing, both with 200% crops that again show the same thing, as well as comparisons to the competition and Nikon's own telephoto lineup. Those tests reveal that the 180-600 holds up well to Nikon's highly regarded 100-400S and 400/4.5S, all triple corroborated by the controlled testing done by Ricci, Steve Perry, and Gordon @ Cameralabs, which are all in agreement. Steve is the only one I have seen who has done a proper comparison to the Sony 200-600 and we see that once again, at least with his copies, the Nikon is slightly sharper which also matches my own impression after having used both.
Every other professional review I have read or watched is very positive, despite some having questionable test methods. History tells us that sample variation exists but is minor and requires careful examination to reveal. I guess my question for you is what are you looking for? Is there something in particular you're waiting to see? I am starting to get the impression that you are searching for a reason to not like the lens, which is obviously fine if you don't, but every reputable tester so far has shown it is an excellent performer.
Steve Perry - he couldn't tell the difference between the Sony 200-600 and the 800pf - he spends quite some time in his video scratching his head over his inability to tell the difference between them. By inference if he thinks the 180-600 is sharper than the Sony it must also be sharper than the 800PF.
A reputable tester - yep sure.
It's no secret that there is little difference in modern lens performance in the very center, even if you're comparing to the exotics. The difference is they do it at a much larger aperture and hold into the sharpness better towards the edges. I don't know what other test you're referencing.
Feel free to show us a all a better test than what he or the other reviewers have put together if you are unhappy that his results didn't validate your brand preferences.
His results also are aligned with the controlled testing done by Ricci and Gordon @ Cameralabs, but I don't imagine you think they are reputable either.
|
