Of D800's and Ferraris and Bad Engines

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I'm sort of tired of people responding to inquiries from someone thinking of buying a D800 and then using it with their current glass with analogies about buying a performance car and then using it with cheap tires, broken engines, you name it. So, I've taken 5 shots here with 5 different lenses that I've spent anywhere between $50 and over $1000. The lenses, in descending order of expense, are...

Nikon 24-120mm f/4
Sigma 24-70mm f/28
Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5
Nikon 50mm f/1.8
Nikkor 28-80mm f/3.5-5.5

Each was shot in manual mode at f/5.6. Framing of the zooms was approximated by a comparison to the 50mm, and composition (such as it is) was done to show areas of focus and OOF/bokeh. Nothing fancy, just pictures you take with a camera, which is my point in disputing these analogies - most people who buy cameras to take pictures, just like most of the idiots buy Ferraris spend more time sitting in traffic and driving under the speed limit and not on a track.

I've sized these in a way that will hopefully remove the EXIF data on upload.

Your goal, tell me which lens is on the D800 for each shot. If you pass, I will allow you to use your stupid analogy in the future. If you fail, I will taunt you miserably each time you do.

Seriously, though, my point here is not to mock the analogy makers (though I do believe it's a crappy analogy), but to say that for most amateurs serious enough to consider the D800, the arguments about the sensor out performing the glass are only valid for what would likely amount to a miniscule percentage of their photography. For the rest, it's going to take a great photo with whatever you stick on the front, and that's the point. And it gives them something to grow into and not out of as they get more and more serious about their photography.
 
Last edited:

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
OK, so it would seems that the software will reveal EXIF when the attachment is displayed in line regardless of having to resize it, and we can't have that. So, the next 5 posts will contain on image attachment each. Tell me the image number and the lens used. Or tell me you give up. :) And no fair trying to drill into the EXIF some way or other.
 
Last edited:

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Image 1:
 

Attachments

  • D81_3496.jpg
    D81_3496.jpg
    184.9 KB · Views: 117

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
I think image #3 was made with the 50mm lens. The others, a little harder to tell but I suspect image #4 has been made with the 28-80. Maybe you can PM me to give me the answer Jake... :)
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
I have no idea what picture was taken with which lens, and not even going to try, because it would only be a guess.
I have seen crappy pictures taken with a D800, and fantastic shots taken with a D3100 with all kinds of different combination of lenses.

As always, it depends on who is holding the camera and the gear.
Besides, I like to make music analogies.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I think we would need 100% crops to see much difference. It does show for web viewing there is little difference.

And that's really my point, Rick. This was a rather unscientific experiment set up first thing this morning to show that for the average photographer the details that you need to see are sufficiently covered by almost all the glass you can stick on the front.

I've attached 100% crops from the most and least expensive lenses. Truth is, the focus is a little soft on the 24-120mm at this spot, but you can see that the $50 plastic lens doesn't look like crap. Go to the corner at 28mm and you might see things you don't like. In the heart of the photo? It's pretty sweet - at least at 50mm f/5.6
 

Attachments

  • D81_3498-3.jpg
    D81_3498-3.jpg
    93.4 KB · Views: 63
  • D81_3502-3.jpg
    D81_3502-3.jpg
    103 KB · Views: 62

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Gear is always proven at the extremes. I just think that even among those of us who shoot a lot and are VERY picky about our shots, we overemphasize the importance of top-end stuff. Frankly, I was amazed at the clarity of the cheap lens on this camera. Put it in some extreme conditions and you may run into trouble, but probably not in 50-75% of the situations in which I shoot - and especially when I can crop in from the edges.
 

Browncoat

Senior Member
Jake, I think you've hit the nail on the proverbial head on a few issues. My personal opinion is that the analogy maker in question adds absolutely nothing of value in the form of technical or working knowledge, so it's automatically dismissed anyway.
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
And one thing we must not forget is that the "cheapest" lens is also the lightest. The 28-80 is the lens I will often leave on the D600 when I take the camera cycling since weight is a factor, specially when climbing hills. So one has to ponder all the benefits of HQ versus benefits of weight and practicality. The smaller lighter 28-80 is also a lot less impressive when time comes to shoot street scenes. People facing the lens can have a different attitude.
 

gqtuazon

Gear Head
Gear is always proven at the extremes. I just think that even among those of us who shoot a lot and are VERY picky about our shots, we overemphasize the importance of top-end stuff. Frankly, I was amazed at the clarity of the cheap lens on this camera. Put it in some extreme conditions and you may run into trouble, but probably not in 50-75% of the situations in which I shoot - and especially when I can crop in from the edges.

Jake- I am very picky with my lenses and what I also consider is their AF performance. Comparing the nikon 24-85mm VR against my 24-70mm f2.8 in their AF performance is pretty significant since the latter is more responsive.

I do agree that non of these factors make any difference on static subjects and if we are just comparing web-size posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top