But with the capabilities of modern cameras the production requirements for them are high and the challenge to make something that works for a variety of consumers even higher. I can't even look at a camera that isn't "weather-proofed" as I live in a place with a 90% chance of rain at any moment, for example. And a lot of these advancements are designed to work in combination with the lenses, such as in-body and in-lens stabilisation working together, weather seals that line up, etc. I think it's pretty important to maintain the same manufacturing quality between the two areas. I'm sure that's possible when moving production to Thailand, but I expect it will take time for them to iron out their processes.
My personal experience of Canon vs Nikon is that I prefer the software of Canon, and historically I preferred the physical ergonomics of Nikon, but the newest Canon models have improved a lot there. On the lens side it was always Canon for me, although I do have a lot of love for Sigma: my 150-600mm Sigma lens has a USB dock where I can actually manually configure the autofocus, among other things, which appeals to my gadget side (and honestly their quality has jumped up massively in the past decade).
It's totally hand-holdable, but reviews online make me wonder if everyone else has pipe cleaners for arms; it took a couple of weeks to get used to it but I don't have any trouble now. The image quality is fantastic and extremely competitive. The image-stabilisation works superbly, and the autofocus is very good - much better than their older lenses.
I mostly photograph birds and I'm extremely happy with the quality. All the recent bird photos I've uploaded are taken with it: https://www.flickr.com/photos/robotmay/50528664881/in/datepo...
I'd like to get myself a long lense for those kinds of shots but I really can't afford Nikon prices!
Can't agree more on the weather-proof part. I was ather funny to be out taking pictures all day, only to find the camera was sitting in 5 cm of water in its protective bag. Nikon did work better druing that, than. Just an anecdote so, some Nikon's didn't like it that good neither.
Some Sigma lenses were really good back than, some on par with Nikkor. Canon lenses were, if I remember well, mostly on par with Nikkor. Been used to Nikon so, I always to break the lighter Canon camera bodies.
Nikon have already been making weather-sealed cameras in Thailand for ages (e.g. the D7500). I think your concerns here are overblown. Any quality problems with their Thai manufacturing operation would already be apparent, given that most of their cameras are made there.
They always have. Yet strangely you can buy an L lens and it may outlast a whole series of bodies. (if we continue to have DSLRs that is).
I've always wondered what the difference is between Sigma and a brand like Canon or Nikon.
I used to have both Canon and Sigma lenses. The Sigmas felt different, and the pictures they produced had a different "look" for what was supposed to be an equivalent lens. My eye isn't trained for these sorts of things, so I was never able to quantify it.
What is it that Sigma does that makes its lenses cheaper than the others?
So they also do a 150-600mm Contemporary model, which has 90% of the performance. It doesn't have full weather-sealing, and it has a different element arrangement which slightly changes the picture quality, but it also drops a huge chunk off the weight and about £400 off the price. It's not quite as solidly built but for a lot of people it's more than enough and provides a good alternative.
In my personal experience Sigma lenses tend to be heavier than Canon for equivalent build quality. ~10 years ago I'd say the picture quality was slightly poorer, but now they compete very well in a variety of ranges.
My use case also involves a fair amount of tripod work, and I even picked up a gimbal just recently.
So I'm glad that Sigma is making lenses which are cheaper / better for the price by leaving out OSS, because there are ways to not need it. If you figure OSS would cost another $200 per lens, which seems a little low but is in the ballpark, then with the Sigma 'trio' of 1.4 primes, the difference between the a6100 and a6600 is just about a wash.
I always found Nikon cameras more my taste than canon. But that is just taste, in terms of quality, in the sense of the pictures, I never saw a difference. Not back the day when we still developed our black and white pictures ourselves and not now with digital cameras.
Lenses on the other hand a different thing altogether. There I saw defferences between the "cheaper" Sigma and the premium Nikkor ones. Not always but sometimes. I would assume that the new mirrirless cameras are less complex to build, so maybe the Thailand based manufacturing facilities are best suited. After all, it's the lense and the person behind the camera that counts.