Character or Flaw?

Hooorah; the ammunition dump has run dry!

For the last however many pages I have kept stating IMO (In my opinion) that X has better build quality/feel than Y but you have kept telling me I am wrong; now you at last concede this :)

Off to bed now :)

You still haven't answered me re Sony Sensor or 85L. What is your opinion on those ?!

If you want to talk on topic, why won't you answer? Why did you not quote the first part of my post and specially leave in the opinion part? Unless you just come in here just to bash me and accuse me bashing Fuji?

p.s. when it comes to build quality, which is measurable, your opinion might be one thing, but your opinion on something measurable can be wrong, like if it's your opinion that 1 + 1 = 5. Putting IMO in front of it make no difference.
 
Last edited:
you still haven't answered me re Sony Sensor or 85L. What is your opinion on those ?!?!

If you want to talk on topic, why don't you answer? Unless you just come in here just to bash me and accuse me bashing Fuji?!

p.s. when it comes to build quality, which is measurable, your opinion might be one thing, but your opinion on something measurable can be wrong, like if it's your opinion that 1 + 1 = 5. Putting IMO in front of it make no difference.

Performance is measurable, build quality is, in part perceptual and therefore has opinion involved. (Which as you rightly state - opinion can not be wrong)

..............looks like you found some more ammo............stop pretending you care about opinion on 'character' when you just want to 'gear whinge'.

......but here goes, just for you, my opinion - yes the Sony sensor is unbelievably crap for skin tones and any Pro wedding tog where nice skin tones are vital must be completely mad to go out an buy one to use in their profession especially when it has been apparently documented well by others, in fact their madness is only superseded by a Pro wedding tog who buys one when they don't like the skin tones it gives then goes on a photography forum and whinges about it but asks others if it is 'Character' or a flaw.................... (I actually know 'f' all about the Sony sensor so any Sony user out there please don't be offended by this)
 
Last edited:
Performance is measurable, build quality is, in part perceptual and therefore has opinion involved. (Which as you rightly state - opinion can not be wrong)

..............looks like you found some more ammo............stop pretending you care about opinion on 'character' when you just want to 'gear whinge'.

I think this is like the 4th time I asked.

What do you think re character on the sensor and the 85L?
 
p.s. Build quality is only perceptual when you judge it skin deep and how it "feels".

Build quality can be measured, this is one way, put a Nikon camera and a Sony camera in the rain and see which one survives. It is measurable, at least for the quality of weather sealing aspect. You can measure it's build quality for heat and cold extremes too by putting them in hot and cold environment. They can be measured. Or think of how it is built against impact, you do drop tests at different heights. You want to test the durability of the mirror, you shoot 100k, 200k, 500k frames in the lab with it and see what happens. They all can be measured.


One might THINK the Sony is better built than a Nikon or Canon, that might be your opinion…but that doesn't support by tests, at least in this case, the weather sealing test.
 
Last edited:
Holy f***** .... lads, was this not about 'character'? because you seem to be losing yours - Love that the Canon site has the M50 up for it's banner though :D

Also yes, I am forever awake
 
Holy f***** .... lads, was this not about 'character'? because you seem to be losing yours - Love that the Canon site has the M50 up for it's banner though :D

Also yes, I am forever awake

I want to talk about character but Fraser seemingly doesn't :p

and I'm up too, but off to bed :D Night!
 
p.s. Build quality is only perceptual when you judge it skin deep and how it "feels".

Build quality can be measured, this is one way, put a Nikon camera and a Sony camera in the rain and see which one survives. It is measurable, at least for the quality of weather sealing aspect. You can measure it's build quality for heat and cold extremes too by putting them in hot and cold environment. They can be measured. Or think of how it is built against impact, you do drop tests at different heights. You want to test the durability of the mirror, you shoot 100,000, 200,000, 500k frames in the lab with it and see what happens. They all can be measured.


Raymond................I am a qualified engineer and my company builds race engines and optimises race car suspension. Something being water proof is a 'design' matter. Rhetorical question - So are all waterproof watches better built than any non waterproof watch. Build quality is partly perceptual like i said, performance is completely measurable.

If the Sony engineers decided to design their camera to a certai IP rating and the product being tested meets and exceeds that rating then it is 'well built'. If the Nikon engineers original design was a higher IP rating than the Sony's but the tested product doesn't quite meet that design, even though it may be more weather proof than the Sony it would be considered in engineering terms poorer build quality as it fails to meet the original design criteria - please note Raymond, I am not saying that they do have different ratings as I don't know, I am just giving an example. (see below for the definition of quality when designing/using a product or service)

Definition of Quality:

  1. A degree of excellence
  2. Conformance to requirements
  3. Totality of characteristics which act to satisfy a need
  4. Fitness for use
  5. Fitness for purpose
  6. Freedom from defects
  7. Delighting customers
As you can see point 7 is perceptual and dependant on the end users' OPINION, as are someones opinion on excellence and totality of characteristics which act to satisfy a need.

If, as you say quality is completely measurable then tell me how you judge the quality of a Photograph?

P.S. I have answered your question on the Sony sensor, here it is again:

Fraser Euan White said:
......but here goes, just for you, my opinion - yes the Sony sensor is unbelievably crap for skin tones and any Pro wedding tog where nice skin tones are vital must be completely mad to go out an buy one to use in their profession especially when it has been apparently documented well by others, in fact their madness is only superseded by a Pro wedding tog who buys one when they don't like the skin tones it gives then goes on a photography forum and whinges about it but asks others if it is 'Character' or a flaw.
 
Last edited:
There may be truth in that and you may be a bit uppity yourself, feel like I've had a run in with you lately too :thinking: maybe WE are the 'character'! ??? :D

04:10 - I win!

I am a right cantankerous old git :) Humour is often lost in words - usually @Phil V jumps in and gives me a right bollocking - guess I'll have to wait 'till morning for that :wave: .................. this bottle of red is really nice though :beer: Full of character IMO..............hick
 
Last edited:
04:10 - I win!


Not ever happening. To beat me on that score you will actually have to never sleep :D

Phil is one of those ancients, we look to him for approval or disdain, we seek his guidance like lost sheep in a wilderness of many wolves.

But yes, a warm beverage, proof-wise, is always handy for the wolfing hours :beer: * sidenote i would probably drink you all under any given table, but are you surprised? I am a patriotic Oirishman who would drink whiskey from a scabby leg wound :D
 
Last edited:
Raymond................I am a qualified engineer and my company builds race engines and optimises race car suspension. Something being water proof is a 'design' matter. Rhetorical question - So are all waterproof watches better built than any non waterproof watch. Build quality is partly perceptual like i said, performance is completely measurable.

If the Sony engineers decided to design their camera to a certai IP rating and the product being tested meets and exceeds that rating then it is 'well built'. If the Nikon engineers original design was a higher IP rating than the Sony's but the tested product doesn't quite meet that design, even though it may be more weather proof than the Sony it would be considered in engineering terms poorer build quality as it fails to meet the original design criteria - please note Raymond, I am not saying that they do have different ratings as I don't know, I am just giving an example. (see below for the definition of quality when designing/using a product or service)

Definition of Quality:

  1. A degree of excellence
  2. Conformance to requirements
  3. Totality of characteristics which act to satisfy a need
  4. Fitness for use
  5. Fitness for purpose
  6. Freedom from defects
  7. Delighting customers
As you can see point 7 is perceptual and dependant on the end users' OPINION, as are someones opinion on excellence and totality of characteristics which act to satisfy a need.

If, as you say quality is completely measurable then tell me how you judge the quality of a Photograph?

P.S. I have answered your question on the Sony sensor, here it is again:

All that text you seem to have missed the word “built” in front of quality.

I said BUILT quality is measurable, I never said “quality is measurable”.

Why are you twisting my words?

Don’t give me a defintion of quality; give me a definition of BUILT quality. It looks like you are heavily leaning towards the perceived quality in the hand as to the quality whereas I rather look deeper. We just have to agree to disagree to how we define quality. I look beyond skin deep and you just like it feel nice.

Still; the 5th time, want to try answer the Sensor and 85L question again or don’t you want to stay on topic?

You don’t really do you? Because I’ve asked 5 times and you avoided it and all you want to whinge about is me and get all upset about Fuji and talking about shooting your own feet?

Can you get back on topic and and talk about character/flaw like YOU wanted to, or don’t you?

Or Mods, please close this.
 
Last edited:
Nope.................you want to whinge about the gear you've bought like you have done numerous times in the past.

How exactly do you talk about gear you never bought?

1- this is a gear forum
2- to talk about gear you don’t own is a guessing game, what’s the point?
3- you never actually want to talk about the gear, in a gear forum; you just like to come in and attack me. Talk about gear whinge; who whinge about modern camera and lenses are not built like they used to?

So do you want to answer the Sony sensor question or the 85L question?
 
All that text you seem to have missed the word “built” in front of quality.

I said BUILT quality is measurable, I never said “quality is measurable”.

Why are you twisting my words?

Don’t give me a defintion of quality; give me a definition of BUILT quality. It looks like you are heavily leaning towards the perceived quality in the hand as to the quality whereas I rather look deeper. We just have to agree to disagree to how we define quality. I look beyond skin deep and you just like it feel nice.

Still; the 5th time, want to try answer the Sensor and 85L question again or don’t you want to stay on topic?

You don’t really do you? Because I’ve asked 5 times and you avoided it and all you want to whinge about is me and get all upset about Fuji and talking about shooting your own feet?

Can you get back on topic and and talk about character/flaw like YOU wanted to, or don’t you?

Or Mods, please close this.

Build = Noun (meaning to construct)
Quality = Verb (see definition previous)

In the English language the Verb describes the Noun so they have to be together to give a descriptive; I am glad you agree that Quality isn't measurable.

You have provided no evidence that modern lenses are built better than older lenses - they may perform better but doesn't mean they are built better. The fit and finish of my modern lenses is no where near as good as my older lenses; the tolerances in the mount and body are larger etc - maybe this is designed like that but it doesn't feel as good. Plastics will never have the same 'quality feel' to me as a nice metal lens barrels. I prefer all metal construction on the inside and outside but who takes their lenses apart anyway? It is the perception of quality that matters to people. My AI-s lenses have stood the test of time, still perform excellently and are a delight to use, just like my Zeiss lenses. My Newer Nikon glass feels nowhere near as good to use.

So, to me the older lenses are better built and have more character - I get pleasure from using them.
 
Build = Noun (meaning to construct)
Quality = Verb (see definition previous)

In the English language the Verb describes the Noun so they have to be together to give a descriptive; I am glad you agree that Quality isn't measurable.

You have provided no evidence that modern lenses are built better than older lenses - they may perform better but doesn't mean they are built better. The fit and finish of my modern lenses is no where near as good as my older lenses; the tolerances in the mount and body are larger etc - maybe this is designed like that but it doesn't feel as good. Plastics will never have the same 'quality feel' to me as a nice metal lens barrels. I prefer all metal construction on the inside and outside but who takes their lenses apart anyway? It is the perception of quality that matters to people. My AI-s lenses have stood the test of time, still perform excellently and are a delight to use, just like my Zeiss lenses. My Newer Nikon glass feels nowhere near as good to use.

So, to me the older lenses are better built and have more character - I get pleasure from using them.

Back on topic for the 7th time, sensor on the Sony and 85L? Thoughts on those?
 
Build = Noun (meaning to construct)
Quality = Verb (see definition previous)

In the English language the Verb describes the Noun so they have to be together to give a descriptive; I am glad you agree that Quality isn't measurable.

You have provided no evidence that modern lenses are built better than older lenses - they may perform better but doesn't mean they are built better. The fit and finish of my modern lenses is no where near as good as my older lenses; the tolerances in the mount and body are larger etc - maybe this is designed like that but it doesn't feel as good. Plastics will never have the same 'quality feel' to me as a nice metal lens barrels. I prefer all metal construction on the inside and outside but who takes their lenses apart anyway? It is the perception of quality that matters to people. My AI-s lenses have stood the test of time, still perform excellently and are a delight to use, just like my Zeiss lenses. My Newer Nikon glass feels nowhere near as good to use.

So, to me the older lenses are better built and have more character - I get pleasure from using them.

The seeming best built modern lenses I've owned have all been Voigtlanders and they do seem better made than any legacy lens I own and do look like they'll last a similar time. Looking at my legacy lenses the ones which seem to be the best made are the metal pre ai Nikon and similarly built but smaller metal Minolta Rokkor MC's but the Voigtlanders do seem better made than any of these and certainly a cut above any modern AF era Canon, Nikon, Sigma or Tamron I've had.
 
Last edited:
The best built lenses I own are the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8, Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 VRII. All three of these are better built than some old Nikon D lenses I’ve had, as well as all the lenses I have for my film cameras (Olympus and Praktica). When I say better built I’m referring to the quality of the materials to build the barrel etc and how well they are put together. By far the worst quality feeling lens is the Olympus 40-150mm f4-5.6R (although it’s good optically), followed by my Nikon 18-35mm G and 50mm f1.8G.

I guess it will depend on which old lenses you have and which newer lenses you have. There’s no doubt that a lot of Nikon’s non pro lenses feel cheap.
 
I guess it will depend on which old lenses you have and which newer lenses you have. There’s no doubt that a lot of Nikon’s non pro lenses feel cheap.

I had a Nikon kit zoom, 28-70mm I think... and it did feel like an empty plastic tube but it lasted well and I must have had it knocking on 20 years before I gave it and the camera away and it never fell apart or missed a beat. I do think that the plastic but well made and durable enough sort of build needs credit alongside the more superficial quality of the metal and looks like it will last decades build.
 
Hi Alan, yes the modern Voigtlanders are lovely construction (as were the older ones). I think they even use the term 'Classical Metal Construction' in their description............but yes, lovely lenses and a joy to use compared to the Plastic Fantastic.

In fairness though, something like the Nikkor 400mm f2.8 uses composite barrel and lenses to help save weight and be more practical - it just doesn't feel so nice in use. If I was a Pro then I may well prefer the benefits this gives me but I'm not and like the heft of a metal construction.
 
I had a Nikon kit zoom, 28-70mm I think... and it did feel like an empty plastic tube but it lasted well and I must have had it knocking on 20 years before I gave it and the camera away and it never fell apart or missed a beat. I do think that the plastic but well made and durable enough sort of build needs credit alongside the more superficial quality of the metal and looks like it will last decades build.
Yep, I didn’t mean to imply that by feeling cheap they aren’t well built. There is something less satisfying (for me) using something that feels cheap though (y)
 
The best built lenses I own are the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8, Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 VRII. All three of these are better built than some old Nikon D lenses I’ve had, as well as all the lenses I have for my film cameras (Olympus and Praktica). When I say better built I’m referring to the quality of the materials to build the barrel etc and how well they are put together. By far the worst quality feeling lens is the Olympus 40-150mm f4-5.6R (although it’s good optically), followed by my Nikon 18-35mm G and 50mm f1.8G.

I guess it will depend on which old lenses you have and which newer lenses you have. There’s no doubt that a lot of Nikon’s non pro lenses feel cheap.

Probably showing my age here - but I class the Nikon D series lenses as 'new Nikkor'.

I own the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8,(until recently) the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII, the Nikon 400mm f2.8 VR in autofocus and the Nikon 50mm f1.8 AIs, Nikon 24mm f2.8 AIs and the Nikon 105mm f2.5 ALs. All of my ALs lenses feel much better to hold, the tolerances on the lens mount are tighter (they fit the camera better with no movement whatsoever), the filter threads are silky smooth and don't 'gaul' when trying to add/remove a filter from the front element. The rubber on the focusing ring feels nicer and the aperture ring (doesn't exist on my later lenses) is beautiful and precise unlike the plastic control knob on the camera. My favorite is the Nikon 105mm f2.5 AIs.

Then my Rollei made Zeiss lenses are on a different level again and are just stunning! They even have ball bearings in the front lens bayonet when adding filters!

The pleasure it gives me using these older lenses it what adds to my hobby.
 
Probably showing my age here - but I class the Nikon D series lenses as 'new Nikkor'.

I own the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8,(until recently) the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII, the Nikon 400mm f2.8 VR in autofocus and the Nikon 50mm f1.8 AIs, Nikon 24mm f2.8 AIs and the Nikon 105mm f2.5 ALs. All of my ALs lenses feel much better to hold, the tolerances on the lens mount are tighter (they fit the camera better with no movement whatsoever), the filter threads are silky smooth and don't 'gaul' when trying to add/remove a filter from the front element. The rubber on the focusing ring feels nicer and the aperture ring (doesn't exist on my later lenses) is beautiful and precise unlike the plastic control knob on the camera. My favorite is the Nikon 105mm f2.5 AIs.

Then my Rollei made Zeiss lenses are on a different level again and are just stunning! They even have ball bearings in the front lens bayonet when adding filters!

The pleasure it gives me using these older lenses it what adds to my hobby.
As I say, I guess it depends on what you’re comparing. I haven’t had the pleasure of using an AI lens. If they genuinely feel that much better than the 24-70 and 70-200 then they must be some pieces of engineering (y).
 
As I say, I guess it depends on what you’re comparing. I haven’t had the pleasure of using an AI lens. If they genuinely feel that much better than the 24-70 and 70-200 then they must be some pieces of engineering (y).

Don't get me wrong - the modern 'Pro glass' from Nikon is still nice I just prefer the AIs stuff.
 
Hi, a typical modern example of a character lens is the Leica Thambar 2,2/90, designed as a character portrait lens with a soft retro look.

Only the price is not retro: not Deutsche Reichsmark, but 5950 €!

But if someone likes it, why not ... ---
 
Last edited:
Back
Top