The Nikons are very good but they rely more on contrast and lack out-and-out resolution, bar maybe the 200mm f2 and to some extent the 300mm f2.8. I've been reassessing my (35mm) camera gear lately! One of the reasons for this is the lack of IQ (photographer's failings aside) for many of my images. The inbetween general photography stuff is catered for by my Zeiss ZF lenses (25 to 85mm). My macro stuff is sort of covered by my Nikon gear using non-Nikon lenses (a couple of Schneiders) but I'll touch upon this later.
My bird/mammal/reptile photography is covered by my Nikon (APS-C) telephoto's (200 to 600mm). Landscape and 'large print' capability is covered by my large format gear. To put it all into perspective I cover the whole range of photography, invariably natural history related. I'd much rather have a 12" image that has utterly, draw-droppingly stunning 3D IQ than a 24 inches of low tonal nasty contrasty plastic 'meh' (yes, I know, that's partly down to poor image processing and camera system limitations). I'm not too bothered about enlargement capability - 18" to 24" is more than ample and anything larger required is catered for by my large format gear. I should also note that I am an image quality* (IQ) freak - I don't care much about high mega-pixel counts but I do care about native resolution bite (not contrast), realistic look (not plastic), etc. This is also a bit of a hybrid post as this could equally be posted under one of the 35mm forums so please bear with me. Okay, this is a really long one so prepare yourself.
0 kommentar(er)
