The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[stuartr]

But would you take a 135i over an NSX? That's the real question . I think all these companies are capable of producing killer cameras, it's just for whatever reason, they decided to market themselves in the specific positions that they have.

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by Towert7

Again, no offense..... but I'll take the Nikon.
Just like I'll take the BMW over the honda. In my mind, it's the same type of choice.

It's a bit more complicated than that, because a camera is as much a lens as it is a sensor and other technology. Using your analogy, you have to separate the lens and camera itself as different components of a car; the entire package, if you will, makes the automobile.

Making analogies is not my forte, but assume for a minute that a lens is like an entire car sans its engine; and a camera the engine itself. Right now, Sony's lens lineup isn't quite as varied or filled as that of Nikon, so one can consider the Sony "car" to have a poor fit and finish, a cheap feel, and generally lackluster performance in comparison to Nikon's "car." I say generally lackluster because the engines (actual cameras) of Nikon and Sony are actually quite comparable in features and in performance.

Now, take lens selection out of the equation, by assuming that both brands eventually carry a similarly priced lineup of equally similar quality. Here, you're left with two generally luxurious automobiles; both retaining a high-quality feel with top-notch suspension systems and cabin technology, and both carrying the same comparably performing engines as before. In that case, you're left with two excellent cars / camera systems, at two very different price points.

Again, I can't guarantee that I'd ever buy into a Sony system, but I think time and reviews have shown that Sony DSLR's are every bit as capable as those from Nikon; at a generally cheaper price.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by stuartr

I think all these companies are capable of producing killer cameras, it's just for whatever reason, they decided to market themselves in the specific positions that they have.

Now that's a very interesting point. I really wish I knew why a company markets it's products to certain demographics when they could, with a little effort, go into different markets.

A person once said they thought 3'rd party lenses could, if they wanted, make lenses up to par with the big names, or better...... but for some reason they continue to make lenses for people on a budget. I guess there is a lot of psychology behind a name and their reputation. Maybe they feel they simply can't sell a product better than their name's reputation will provide them.

Now that I think about it, it's funny that you bring up the Honda NSX. Now there's a car that was aimed to compete with the other super cars, but no one really wanted it. The mind set was: why buy a Honda when you can have a porsche, lambo, or Ferrari (etc). It appears there's a lot to a 'name'. I'm the same way. I'd probably pick the F430 over the NSX, because....... well...... it's a Ferrari!

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY

It's a bit more complicated than that

I know, I know.

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by Towert7

Now that's a very interesting point. I really wish I knew why a company markets it's products to certain demographics when they could, with a little effort, go into different markets.

A person once said they thought 3'rd party lenses could, if they wanted, make lenses up to par with the big names, or better...... but for some reason they continue to make lenses for people on a budget. I guess there is a lot of psychology behind a name and their reputation. Maybe they feel they simply can't sell a product better than their name's reputation will provide them.

Now that I think about it, it's funny that you bring up the Honda NSX. Now there's a car that was aimed to compete with the other super cars, but no one really wanted it. The mind set was: why buy a Honda when you can have a porsche, lambo, or Ferrari (etc). It appears there's a lot to a 'name'. I'm the same way. I'd probably pick the F430 over the NSX, because....... well...... it's a Ferrari!

Sigma makes mostly budget lenses because people buy mostly budget lenses. Yes, Sigma could probably direct its resources towards R&D of true quality lenses if it wanted to, but they simply wouldn't be able recoup their losses if the company did so.

Think about it in the mind of a consumer. Truth be told, most aren't aware that lenses, and not cameras, have the greatest impact on image quality in today's 10MP+ market. Likely, a first time DSLR buyer will put 80%-90% of their budget towards an actual camera, leaving a meager 10%-20% for the more vital lens. Sigma knows this, and thus accents the low price of their lenses as a one true selling point. In reality, though, it does make sense. Given that consumers shop for lenses based on cost above pretty much all else, how would Sigma gain market share if it were to increase the quality and thus cost of their products? It's difficult to advertise image quality anyway without introducing complicated diagrams, and given that consumers like to buy equipment from one manufacturer, it makes sense to assume that Sigma would rapidly lose market share if it decided to rival Nikon and Canon's lenses in quality and price.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY

Sigma makes mostly budget lenses because people buy mostly budget lenses. Yes, Sigma could probably direct its resources towards R&D of true quality lenses if it wanted to, but they simply wouldn't be able recoup their losses if the company did so.

Think about it in the mind of a consumer. Truth be told, most aren't aware that lenses, and not cameras, have the greatest impact on image quality in today's 10MP+ market. Likely, a first time DSLR buyer will put 80%-90% of their budget towards an actual camera, leaving a meager 10%-20% for the more vital lens. Sigma knows this, and thus accents the low price of their lenses as a one true selling point. In reality, though, it does make sense. Given that consumers shop for lenses based on cost above pretty much all else, how would Sigma gain market share if it were to increase the quality and thus cost of their products? It's difficult to advertise image quality anyway without introducing complicated diagrams, and given that consumers like to buy equipment from one manufacturer, it makes sense to assume that Sigma would rapidly lose market share if it decided to rival Nikon and Canon's lenses in quality and price.

Yup. I agree with this.

[FrederikS|TPU]

Originally Posted by Towert7

bhphoto.com

I'd recommend the Nikon Nikkor 60mm Micro for 400$us.
If you do not need the distance that the extra focal lengths give you, I'd recommend this 60mm. Makes me think I have a FF camera!

I am going to check out some 60mm and 90mm offerings to see which suits my needs the best. Thanks for all the help

[lan]

I'm going to go out and mess with the D700 now. I'll see if it's worth getting rid of both my D300 and 5D.

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by lan

I'm going to go out and mess with the D700 now. I'll see if it's worth getting rid of both my D300 and 5D.

Even used, I think the D700 is about as much as a 5D and D300 combined. Personally, unless you're willing to give up all your great Canon lenses, I think it makes sense to stick with the two fantastic cameras you already own.

[agile_one]

Used D700 ???? You may want to rethink that one ... at this point there aren't even any unused D700s out there. It isn't officially on sale until July 25th, and then will be in extremely tight supply.

Good point re: lan's Canon lens collection, but if he decides to let the 5D go, there are willing buyers to be found. I will be most interested in your reaction to the D700, lan, and what you decide to do.