| Joined: | Wed Apr 18th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4193 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Thank You for mentioning the wildlife photog and the squabbles he experienced.
I started this thread about my wondering about photogs migrating to the " Z " system,but then leaving it again,...but to where?
Granted,I do not know all the others,but it seems to me that there is no " better " alternative.
Nikon has always been able to implement real improvements that work,and being very consistent about it, whereas other makes come with something that at closer look are not that impressive, I remember when Olympus showed up with the M1 and the court case that ensued by Leica no less, what a circus that was, today Olympus has no pro-system that matches Nikon...and Minolta who was first with autofocus in a pro camera, ...gone !
The only true rival is Canon,but is their offering a better one then ?
Several members here have gone over to brands that do not have the same huge lens range that Nikon offers,and, some of their lenses are very expensive, so is this a case then of " I am not going to use what grandpa has " ?
I think it was Graham Whistler who showed some lovely photo`s taken in Africa with a Nikon rig,but has now a Sony, ..so why is that one better ?
Personally I stay with the SLR and have in recent years heavily invested in VR lenses as I rely heavily on Nikon`s famed reliability.
Someone once said “the best camera is the one you have in your hand”.
It really depends on where and how a person uses their equipment.
It also depends on how you define professional equipment. If you mean the most robust to withstand the rigours of daily use (or abuse) then I would probably agree with you. But if you mean professional quality images then I would argue that Olympus equipment, as demonstrated by Jeff’s wildlife images, are more than a match for Nikons.
ANY camera placed on a tripod and positioned close enough to the subject to fill the frame, will raise its game. Using a prime lens suitable for that framing will further improve the result, as will using lens hoods, filters and managing lighting.
It’s only when situations require a less rigid approach ( eg moving subjects, difficult terrain, distant subjects, poor lighting, remote locations ) that we may need to question the suitability of our equipment.
If I hadn’t become interested in bird photography I am convinced I would still be using my Nikon 850 and AFS lenses because to me, although I wanted lighter equipment, the mirrorless offerings like the Z system didn’t deliver sufficient improvement in that respect and actually introduced some irritating negatives.
There is no need to change one’s equipment provided it does what you need …..until it’s no longer serviceable or replaceable. At that point, we all face the decision of which way to go.
Last edited on Tue Feb 6th, 2024 22:39 by
____________________
Eric