Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: JohnBrew on May 01, 2012, 07:26:34 am
-
Mark's new article doesn't really shed any new light on either camera, but is interesting anyway as the hype for the new Nikon grows. Mark, can you tell us what lenses or lens you used on the Sony? Getting a good wide angle has been a problem with the crop sensor. I have a Zeiss 21 coming which I will use with a Nikon adapter but after the crop factor isn't all that wide anymore. Of course I will also use it on my D700 (or D800 once Nikon quits holding them for ransom). I'm in total agreement this is a terrific year for photography. This month Leica is making an announcement and several of the big boys will probably rock us back on our heels at Photokina. Lots of choices.
-
Another very positive review for the D800. Looks as though I should have put in a pre-order immediately the camera was announced. ;D
I agree with Mark that the 35mm format has always fundamentally been a miniature format that is a compromise on the image quality available from larger formats, in the interests of portability.
But I'm curious about the truth of Mark's comment in relation to the need of a sturdy tripod, and his dismissal of the effectiveness of VR.
This what he writes: This is a camera that requires a heavy solid tripod. .....
I have also noticed a similar effect when shooting handheld. Shooting at the reciprocal of the focal length of the lens is not good enough-even with a VRII lens. I would recommend multiplying the focal length of the lens times 3X and using the reciprocal of this number as the minimum shutter speed for maximum handheld quality.
Is Mark claiming that optical Image Stabilisation, or VR, is over-rated? I'd be willing to reduce the manufacturers'claims by one stop. For example, the older versions of VR might claim up to 3 stops; call it 2 stops. VRII claims up to 4 stop improvement. Call it 3 stops.
Let's look at the basic maths that everyone should be able to understand. A 1/100th sec exposure with a 100mm lens, without IS or VR, is not going to pass muster. However, the 2 stop advantage of a basic, old-fashioned IS or VR is equivalent to a 1/400th sec exposure. The 3-stop advantage of VRII is equivalent to 1/800th sec.
Is Mark really claiming that a 1/800th sec exposure with a 100mm lens, hand-held and without VRII, is not sufficient for optimal results with a stationary subject?
I've never found this to be the case with my two cropped versions of a 38.4mp and 36mp full-frame cameras, ie. the 15mp Canon 50D and 16mp D7000.
Perhaps I'm just an unusually calm and steady person. ;D
-
Mark says that the the D800/800e is "a game changer", but I have to disagree. It is a good camera, no doubt about it, but a game changer? We have been here before, but these cameras do not represent a new technology, more like a jump in processing power for a computer. Useful, yes, desirable, yes but to call it a game changer smacks of overworked hyperbole.
-
Mark says that the the D800/800e is "a game changer", but I have to disagree.
"... For me the Nikon D800/D800E is a game changer."
"The D800/D800E ... is definitely a game changer. At least for me it is."
I hope we can find the humility to admit that Mark is in a better position than any of us to see whether the D800/D800E is going to change his game ;-)
-
I think we all tend to throw around the phrase "game changer" too readily in the excitement of the moment when what we really mean is something a tad less radical. Mark was taking great shots before the D800, they are now just higher resolution great shots ;D
Or maybe its all just humbug because he has a D800 and I don't ::)
-
I think it's a marketing game changer. Nikon have produced a relatively affordable leap in performance that one would normally expect only from a top-of-the-line model.
Canon did a similar thing with the introduction of the original 5D, which resulted in people like me buying a full-frame DSLR for the first time.
-
But I'm curious about the truth of Mark's comment in relation to the need of a sturdy tripod, and his dismissal of the effectiveness of VR.
This what he writes:
This is a camera that requires a heavy solid tripod. .....
I have also noticed a similar effect when shooting handheld. Shooting at the reciprocal of the focal length of the lens is not good enough-even with a VRII lens. I would recommend multiplying the focal length of the lens times 3X and using the reciprocal of this number as the minimum shutter speed for maximum handheld quality.
Is Mark claiming that optical Image Stabilisation, or VR, is over-rated? I'd be willing to reduce the manufacturers'claims by one stop. For example, the older versions of VR might claim up to 3 stops; call it 2 stops. VRII claims up to 4 stop improvement. Call it 3 stops.
Let's look at the basic maths that everyone should be able to understand. A 1/100th sec exposure with a 100mm lens, without IS or VR, is not going to pass muster. However, the 2 stop advantage of a basic, old-fashioned IS or VR is equivalent to a 1/400th sec exposure. The 3-stop advantage of VRII is equivalent to 1/800th sec.
Is Mark really claiming that a 1/800th sec exposure with a 100mm lens, hand-held and without VRII, is not sufficient for optimal results with a stationary subject?
I wonder if there is an element of him erring on the side of safety because he doesn't want people to come back to him and say "I did what you recommended and it didn't work for me!"
But in this area, his comments aren't in alignment with Michael's and for what it's worth, I trust Michael's more.
First of all, the tripod. Most 35 mm shooters I see in the field use tripods that are already marginal in terms of being too small and flimsy for their cameras. People seem to think about what is small, convenient and looks cool, instead of thinking about what they really need.
Here's a challenge for you Mark: come up with a kit that revolves around the D800 that you are happy to put on your back and hike up to the top of Half Dome (at Yosemite) and back in a day. Or to put it in more recent terms, how would you design a pack list if you want to take the D800 and hike the Machu Pichu trail? I'm curious to know how he'll balance the "what's needed" in terms of carrying lbs of water vs carrying lbs of gear.
As a side note, for an article that was about the D800, I would have liked to have seen more D800 pictures and less pictures from his South American trip with the NEX-7. I've seen enough NEX-7 work already and the happy snaps add no value...
-
Given the price point of the 800/800e and the accompanying lenses (unless you are already a Nikonian), it does change things for the better. As we have now heard from several reputable photographers, this is a camera capable of capturing images that can be printed big; a critical thing for landscape photographers. I can put an 800/800e body and five lenses into my backpack and trek around all day without being weighted down much at all. One can come up with extremely flexible systems that will work well in the field for a reasonable cost.
Alan
-
By the pure numbers, the D800(E) is, like almost any new DSLR, incremental progress: more resolution, more DR, less noise at high exposure index, etc. But "game" implies competition and comparisons to rivals, and the D800 moves 36x24mm format past some important thresholds, like offering both better DR and equal or better resolution (on top of a vastly lower price and wider lens selection) than a number of options in larger formats. In a competitive sense, going from behind on the score to ahead can change the result of the game, especially with all signs being that the formats up to 36x24mm are accelerating while the larger ones are not, so that new if small lead is likely to grow, rather than be relinquished. So in this sense, the D800(E) is a game changer.
-
Given the price point of the 800/800e and the accompanying lenses (unless you are already a Nikonian), it does change things for the better. As we have now heard from several reputable photographers, this is a camera capable of capturing images that can be printed big; a critical thing for landscape photographers. I can put an 800/800e body and five lenses into my backpack and trek around all day without being weighted down much at all. One can come up with extremely flexible systems that will work well in the field for a reasonable cost.
Alan
+1. For me, anyway, it'll be a game-changer.
I disagree with Mark on ergonomics. I think Nikon has the best ergonomics of any camera system, bar none (and that includes the high-priced spreads.) Much of that, of course, is due to the fact that I've used Nikons for forty years now. I can quite literally walk around almost unaware that I have one in my hand, my finger on the shutter release. I can pick up virtually any Nikon, high-end or low-end, and be comfortable with it in a matter of a couple of minutes. I think it is difficult to say anything serious about ergonomics without working with a camera for quite a while (maybe weeks.) Canon SLRs and DSLRs have always seemed awkward to me, but Canon people tell me the ergonomics are better than Nikons, and I'll buy that...for them, anyway.
It's impossible to disagree with somebody about the quality of a viewfinder, because if he thinks a viewfinder is small and dim, it probably is, for him. But that always struck me as a problem for somebody who likes to look through viewfinders. I don't, especially. I use the viewfinder to frame things. I look at the subject, and look, and look, and then I put the viewfinder to my face and frame and shoot, all in a half-second, and then take the camera down and I start looking again. That's even true when I occasionally use a tripod. So, for me, anyway, a viewfinder has to be good enough, but that's about all -- and the Nikons are easily good enough. (But some viewfinders aren't - I'm still occasionally annoyed with the EVFs on my Panasonics.)
IMHO, the thing I'll miss the most on the D800 is an articulated LCD...
-
I use the viewfinder to frame things. I look at the subject, and look, and look, and then I put the viewfinder to my face and frame and shoot, all in a half-second, and then take the camera down and I start looking again.
I thought I might be the only one who is not bothered by smaller viewfinders, like that of the Olympus E-1 compared to 35mm SLRs. I found that one perfect: sharp and bright and 100% coverage ... and a better size than the larger VF images of my 35mm (film) SLRs for seeing the whole composition and checking the framing without needing eye-ball gymnastics to search the corners. The typical 0.7x of an AF SLR requires too much eye movement for my tastes. As to the even higher magnification of manual focus SLRs, like even my humble Pentax K-1000: I do not know now how I ever worked with that! I suppose I mostly looked in the middle, where I was focusing.
And of course, an EVF with magnification during manual focusing changes the debate again.
-
Mark says that the the D800/800e is "a game changer", but I have to disagree. It is a good camera, no doubt about it, but a game changer? We have been here before, but these cameras do not represent a new technology, more like a jump in processing power for a computer. Useful, yes, desirable, yes but to call it a game changer smacks of overworked hyperbole.
Name one camera in the history of photography that was so well balanced, high performance and non-compromised? I agree it is a pivotal point in photography, I no longer need to make a choice of compromises when making a purchase!
Marc
It's not the evolutionary progress its the well balanced sum of the whole
-
Mark says that the the D800/800e is "a game changer", but I have to disagree. It is a good camera, no doubt about it, but a game changer? We have been here before, but these cameras do not represent a new technology, more like a jump in processing power for a computer. Useful, yes, desirable, yes but to call it a game changer smacks of overworked hyperbole.
I agree, no doubt I will find it excellent once I finally manage to get hold of one but it follows the path of evolutionary rather than revolutionary: some more pixels, some more DR, even the AF system and body are mostly the same after 4 years. There is little here to change the game, it won't really change how we shoot or open up new photographic possibilities.
-
It's not the evolutionary progress its the well balanced sum of the whole
It's a 2012 F100 with an updated AF module, a very nice digital sensor and a pretty nice (although fixed) LCD.
Don't really see anything game-changing about that.
It doesn't do anything to:
1) Address the new possibilities raised by digital. It's an SLR with an imaging chip.
2) Let you compose using the LCD with useful autofocus for any subject moving faster than a drunk slug.
3) Shoot video with the EVF or real autofocus in video or liveview mode
4) Eliminate the problem of shutter shake or mirror slap
5) Stabilize the camera against shake (you have to buy special built, sometimes compromised glass for this).
It's a really nice refinement of the SLR design, for sure. But it doesn't do anything particularly INNOVATIVE at all. I suppose if I felt the SLR design were the pinnacle of photographic evolution I might be more impressed. But I don't, and I'm not.
I guess the removal of the anti-moire filter in the "E" model is a bit of an innovation -albeit one that I personally believe is a mistake (just perform a bit more capture sharpening and you're there). I am not one who feels the idea of false colors along sharp edges is an innovation worth having (although admittedly this is a CHOICE -- you can't really fault Nikon for offering that, can you!)
I blame the customer for all this. Buyers of $3000 cameras and $20,000 worth of lenses are, in the main, men in their 40s, 50s and 60s who have been using SLRs for 10, 20, 30 or more years. They don't want "breakthrough" and "innovative". So Nikon and Canon continue offering up familiar, improved rehashes of the products they have been shipping for 30+ years with occasional improvements "dropped in".
Meanwhile, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic continue to innovate and remain stuck in a distant third, fourth or fifth place. It's depressing. But not a surprise given who buys expensive system cameras. You can't blame Canon and Nikon for building what their customers want.
-
I blame the customer for all this. Buyers of $3000 cameras and $20,000 worth of lenses are, in the main, men in their 40s, 50s and 60s who have been using SLRs for 10, 20, 30 or more years
Damn, you nailed me, Matthew.
-
I blame the customer for all this. Buyers of $3000 cameras and $20,000 worth of lenses are, in the main, men in their 40s, 50s and 60s who have been using SLRs for 10, 20, 30 or more years.
Interesting statement - I assume you are applying some type of deducting reasoning.
Speaking as one who sells cameras and has delivered a great many d800s and 5D Mark 3's (not even close to filling the waiting list) I think the numbers show a different story. All ages are buying the camera but I would guess that about 60% of those we've sold or on the waiting list are under 40, perhaps even under 35.
-
The real embarrassment:
That CaNikon dSLRs force you to do stuff like this (http://oopoomoo.com/2012/04/shooting-blind-for-better-action-portraits-of-dogs/) in order to get compelling portraits of dogs, small wildlife, and toddlers (or crawl around on the floor with them!)
I've been beating this drum for ten years. Only Sony (and one discontinued Olympus 4/3 model) has provided a solution that works with SLR glass. This was DIRT OBVIOUS ten years ago, the first time I picked up a Sony DSC-F707. TEN YEARS. That's about eight replacement cycles for their prosumer dSLRs -- Canon D30, D60, 60D, 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, 60D. Why, ten years on, are Canon and Nikon selling cameras that can't autofocus worth beans in liveview mode? Why do so many of their cameras have fixed LCDs? Why can't you use the viewfinders to shoot video, if video is "so important" to their plans? WTF?!?!?!
Yeah, the Nikon D800 has a really nice top-notch sensor (almost certainly made by Sony). It has an admittedly excellent autofocus system. Why doesn't the LCD articulate (makes liveview work on the tripod much more pleasant)? Why do you have to use Darwin's "shooting blind" technique to get toddler or dog portraits that aren't looking down on the top of their head? Why don't photo professionals INSIST on the manufacturers providing solutions for these SLR limitations? Why don't professional wedding and event photographers DEMAND cameras that can be used "off the face" and actually focus on people walking around when in liveview mode? I am truly, utterly, and completely mind-boggled.
It's not like Leica and TLR users haven't been saying FOR YEARS and even DECADES how liberating and useful it is to use a camera for social photography that isn't grafted to your face and eyeball like a fracking Borg appendage. You know, THEY'RE RIGHT!!!
-
Anyone care to estimate what proportion of "keeper" shots by the totality of both serious enthusiastic amateurs and professionals end up as "exhibition prints"? Where "exhibition" is taken to mean no less than 40-50 inches wide?
Roy
-
And in that same vein, anyone care to estimate the number of people who have the requisite skills and equipment Mark says are essential to use the D800/E to its capabilities? I suspect Nikon believes (hopes) that number is quite a bit larger than does Mark. :)
I'm not sure I know what an "exhibition" print is, but over the course of 50+ years in photography, I have see stunning large scale prints from all sorts of equipment, most recently grainy, dark, but stunning large prints of the young Elvis taken with a 35mm in 1956. Limited "IQ" and "DR"...but riveting.
-
But in this area, his comments aren't in alignment with Michael's and for what it's worth, I trust Michael's more.
The simple fact that Mark writes a positive article about a DSLR is, in itself, quite significant.
-
Where "exhibition" is taken to mean no less than 40-50 inches wide?
Given that many greats, including Saint Ansel, exhibited mostly at 20"x16" and smaller, and that I still see a preponderance of size like 14"x11" to 20"x16" in exhibitions of recent work, I am skeptical about this new-fangled equating of "exhibition print" with "monster sized prints mostly for viewing from many feet away while chatting and sipping on chardonnay".
-
Given that many greats, including Saint Ansel, exhibited mostly at 20"x16" and smaller, and that I still see a preponderance of size like 14"x11" to 20"x16" in exhibitions of recent work, I am skeptical about this new-fangled equating of "exhibition print" with "monster sized prints mostly for viewing from many feet away while chatting and sipping on chardonnay".
+999!
20"x16" is plenty big enough. I don't want no f-------- billboards in my house!
-
There seems to be lots of people around with tons more wall space than I have.
-
Big Country, big cars, big wimin?
Strange not to mention the obvious - big homes, with big blank walls.
Apologies - Robert Roaldi already did mention the obvious.
-
Given that many greats, including Saint Ansel, exhibited mostly at 20"x16" and smaller, and that I still see a preponderance of size like 14"x11" to 20"x16" in exhibitions of recent work, I am skeptical about this new-fangled equating of "exhibition print" with "monster sized prints mostly for viewing from many feet away while chatting and sipping on chardonnay".
I went to Paris a year or so ago to see a retrospective of Michael Kenna's work...just a wonderful show at the BNF, I went twice...none of his prints were any larger than 12" in width or height, most smaller...incredible landscape and cityscape prints, and seeing the prints themselves, a real treat...
-
Yes, Kenna was one of the photographers I was referring to. Masterly.
Whatever happened to intimacy?
Never mind the quality feel the width.
Exact,...i loved getting up close to look at his photos...that intimacy is wonderful, size nearly irrelevant...i felt the same way about Paul Klee's work...small wonderful paintings you get up close and personal with...
it's why my own photographic work, the prints, are small...my d700 more than enough, though an upgrade will eventually come...I have done some test prints that hover around 24 inches max, but it's for kicks...most are no more than 12" wide or high...
-
1. The pooch pix in the link: the best I’ve seen in a helluva long time if not ever; they have a huge sense of fun and not a jot of silly quasi-human portraiture applied to them. Love ‘em. So it takes time, lots of shots and a touch of Dame Fortune – tried shooting women in rolling surf?
2. Large prints. I can only do A3+ max. which is 13”x19” and quite small, all things considered. So clearly, I do have a current preference for something that fits within the available (to me) format and leaves a reasonable white border.
But the thing is, for whom are the prints intended? If for my personal consumption, then large enough, all things considered, because I haven’t the space for anything much more grand; if for anyone else, then I would think that the galleries have it right: they’re selling an impression, a statement, which may, or may not also be termed art. There is also the concept of value for money, rapport prix/qualité as the French would have it, when thinking of eating out somewhere. Bigger often equates with better, as arguments within LuLa itself regularly demonstrate, so why deny the outer world its own take on this format/price/value notion? Obviously, had I a larger printer and a market for my smudges, then I’m fairy sure that I, too, would advocate larger prints at higher prices!
Indeed, some great snapper don’t print large; some are dead and contact prints are all that exist of the right marketing provenance. Some simply never printed anything at all for a market beyond the fashion mags and so their old work lingering in locked/forgotten Vogue or Harper’s office drawers will never be any larger than originally required for reproduction.
There’s a final (that I can think of at the moment) point: some images simply look better smaller than large and, clearly, I believe vice versa holds as true.
Rob C
-
Rob, I'd far rather sell one small print to ten buyers than one large print to one.
Hope the eyes are OK.
Best
Keith
Just playing devil's advocate here. Don't shoot the messenger. What if the choice were to sell one large print to a client or sit on ten unsold smaller prints? The client may not always be right, but they're the ones who write the checks.
-
Why, ten years on, are Canon and Nikon selling cameras that can't autofocus worth beans in liveview mode? Why do so many of their cameras have fixed LCDs? Why can't you use the viewfinders to shoot video, if video is "so important" to their plans? ...
It's not like Leica and TLR users haven't been saying FOR YEARS and even DECADES how liberating and useful it is to use a camera for social photography that isn't grafted to your face and eyeball like a fracking Borg appendage. You know, THEY'RE RIGHT!!!
Fair enough: the D800 represent a mere quantitative change, which however might take 36x24mm past a tipping point in comparisons to some large format options, and so might be the start of a substantial qualitative change in gear choices and in the viability of certain larger format options ... but a thoroughly professional quality Live View EVF/LCD viewfinder system could be a bigger qualitative change in how high end photography is done.
And I do find it amusing that the curmudgeons have over years shifted from
"It is better to compose with two-eyed viewing top down on a (frosted glass) screen while being able to keep both eyes on the subject, (as with an TLR or old-style MF body) than to have to compose squinting through one eye, with the camera held less stably and less comfortably in front of your face, or having to crouch down behind a tripod."
to
"Composing on a small (LCD) screen far from your face is utterly embarrassing, unstable and snap-shoty, far inferior to holding the camera securely braced against your face while looking through the VF".
Trivia: the 4:3 image on the frosted glass screen of a 645 or 6x6 MF camera is 2.8" on the diagonal, so a bit smaller that the "tiny, useless" image on the LCDs of most recent cameras, and less accurate for preview of DOF, brightness, contrast and such. How did anyone compose well with such junk?!
-
Last month, I spent the better part of a day going through the annual AIPAD show (www.aipad.com)
to research how I might approach moving towards a photo 'art' business and to get a bit of an insight
into what the gallery side of the business might expect from a newcomer.
Personal tastes aside, I definitely left with the impression that comtemporary work is being
selected,or at least shown, with more frequency at sizes greater than 16 x 20 than at sizes smaller.
Of course,all sizes were represented,especially with vintage prints from established old school
stalwarts but newer work was more often than not in the range of 24x36 and up-often
significantly up. That said, there were equally as many 'softish' large prints as there were super
detailed ,crisp large prints.
All worked well as long as the content was compelling (again,personal taste) and,at the end of the
day, ultimate resolution played far less a role in the process than I went in expecting.
Gallery owners or curators might be more interested in larger vs. smaller, though, as it might be a
better return on their labor investment selling one editioned 60x90 print for $7500 than it would be
trying to sell a number of smaller prints with lower price points to achieve the same financial
return for a gallery.
Mark
www.marktomalty.com
-
I'm so delighted to learn from this thread that I'm not the only one who appreciates small, intimate prints!
-
Given that many greats, including Saint Ansel, exhibited mostly at 20"x16" and smaller, and that I still see a preponderance of size like 14"x11" to 20"x16" in exhibitions of recent work, I am skeptical about this new-fangled equating of "exhibition print" with "monster sized prints mostly for viewing from many feet away while chatting and sipping on chardonnay".
I once wrote an article for The Online Photographer about print sizes. I suggested that many photographic prints are too small for the commercial market. To look at the problem, I went back and looked at the sizes of seventy-odd paintings, all masterpieces, in a standard art text. I did this because some types of artists -- photographers, print-makers, fresco painters, miniaturists (obviously) and others are constrained in size either by the mechanics of their art form (photographers, printers) or by the demands of the consumer (frescos are made for walls, and are heavy, and thus are most often wall-sized. Miniatures are usually a form of jewelry, and are made to be worn, and so have to be light.) Painters don't have those kinds of constraints, and can choose essentially any size. What I found, and what you will find if you look at an art book, is that painters very, very rarely choose to paint as small as photographers print. They *can* paint small, but they usually don't, and there are lots of reasons for that. Now, don't tell me that there are biases in the data, that photos and paintings are looked at differently, or that you paint small, or you know some guy who does -- I know that. But the fact remains that the overwhelming number of paintings are larger than most photographic prints. (Painting sizes are all over the place, but generally, the "favorite" size, if you are forced to pick one, you be around 1,000 square inches, which would be a 25x40 square in painting.) Also, look at printed posters: they're large -- often larger than the photographic "fine art" prints from which they are made.
Until recently, the reason for small photographic prints was clear -- common negative sizes simply didn't hold up in larger prints. You had to go to very large format cameras, and very large format enlargers, to do that, and those were appropriate for only limited kinds of photography. That's no longer so true. Size is now opening up, and I think that larger photographs will become the standard. Because of the way printers work, I suspect that 13x19 all probably become the standard "small" print, at least for a while.
If you're interested: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/03/image-size.html
-
Rob, I'd far rather sell one small print to ten buyers than one large print to one.
Hope the eyes are OK.
Best
Keith
Hi Keith
I’d be perfectly happy to sell one print to anyone! Apart from commercially-motivated print stuff on assignment, I’ve sold very very little other than some stuff to a U.S. (I remembered, Eric!) client which wasn’t even on digital, which tells its own story regarding time-lines!
With respect to the peepers: they did three different tests; I’ve been prescribed some drops and await further contact from them regarding more tests. I hope for the best… I met an old jazz musician from Wales today whilst having lunch and told him the eye-hospital story along with the comment that a blind snapper wasn’t going to be of a great deal of use; his warm encouragement was that no, I’d be about as much use as a deaf jazz musician. Felt so much better with that. Set me thinking about dumb singers, and concluded that it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing, regarding some singers. There’s a tunnel at the end of every light.
;-)
Rob C
-
I guess like just about everybody I'm interested in the D800, and I've tried one. I'm sure it lets you make very big, sharp prints, but I don't think it's for me. I just didn't much like the feel. The big sticking point for me is just what Matthew Cromer said in an earlier post: Live View is just crippled without a tilting screen. So I'm going to stick with my (not actually discontinued yet, Matthew) Olympus E-5, despite a sensor which most here wouldn't even bother to sneer it, because of it's fabulous usability as a photographic tool which, now & then, gets me shots that a Nikon D800 probably wouldn't.
However, a D900 with the E-5's screen, that might tempt me :-)
(oh, and add me to the "sometimes big is TOO big" faction, too)
-
Michael Kenna (a favourite) prints everything 8 x 7 1/2" inches.
David Fokos (great name for a photographer) who does a similar style prints everything huge http://www.davidfokos.net/installation4.htm
1. The pooch pix in the link: the best I’ve seen in a helluva long time if not ever; they have a huge sense of fun and not a jot of silly quasi-human portraiture applied to them. Love ‘em. So it takes time, lots of shots and a touch of Dame Fortune – tried shooting women in rolling surf?
2. Large prints. I can only do A3+ max. which is 13”x19” and quite small, all things considered. So clearly, I do have a current preference for something that fits within the available (to me) format and leaves a reasonable white border.
But the thing is, for whom are the prints intended? If for my personal consumption, then large enough, all things considered, because I haven’t the space for anything much more grand; if for anyone else, then I would think that the galleries have it right: they’re selling an impression, a statement, which may, or may not also be termed art. There is also the concept of value for money, rapport prix/qualité as the French would have it, when thinking of eating out somewhere. Bigger often equates with better, as arguments within LuLa itself regularly demonstrate, so why deny the outer world its own take on this format/price/value notion? Obviously, had I a larger printer and a market for my smudges, then I’m fairy sure that I, too, would advocate larger prints at higher prices!
Indeed, some great snapper don’t print large; some are dead and contact prints are all that exist of the right marketing provenance. Some simply never printed anything at all for a market beyond the fashion mags and so their old work lingering in locked/forgotten Vogue or Harper’s office drawers will never be any larger than originally required for reproduction.
There’s a final (that I can think of at the moment) point: some images simply look better smaller than large and, clearly, I believe vice versa holds as true.
Rob C
-
Mark says that the the D800/800e is "a game changer", but I have to disagree. .. Useful, yes, desirable, yes but to call it a game changer smacks of overworked hyperbole.
Wile Mark is prone to over worked hyperbole, as opposed to mere hyperbole ;), I have to come to his defense on the 'game changer' issue. It is in the same league as the original 1Ds in its potential for impact on the industry.
Photographically, it delivers IQ performance which leaves very little reason to purchase medium format, while simultaneously performing at gob-smacking ISOs, all with dead-on autofocus.
Economically, it obviates the high-end crop-dslrs as 'pro-sumer' cameras. Most people with the money for serious glass and a serious interest in photography will find little appeal in a $1500-1800 APS-C camera when a D800 can be had for $3K.
It's not fan-boy talk to say this camera will likely be looked-back on as a real milestone in the digital camera industry.
- N.
-
Regarding print size and comparison to paintings, it is worth noting that the great Dutch master Vermeer painted on small canvases as opposed to really big. I have an Ansel Adams Yosemite special edition print (Merced River in Autumn) that is 8x10 and it's magnificent.
-
John,
There is one very obvious difference between making a painting and making a photographic print: the resolution given by paint brushes and by the manual dexterity of most painters is garbage by photographic standards. It is clearly easier for a painter to work with brush and line widths of several mm or more (miniaturists are a special case, requiring far more difficult technique).
To be generous, most painters naturally operate at the equivalent of 1mm or greater line width, and with that, the detail of even a very modest 2MP, 1600x1200 image requires 1600x1200mm, or about 64x38 inches. I leave it to others to work out how large a canvas would need to be in order to render the detail of a D800 image in oils!
But in case I was misunderstood: there are perfectly good cases for making some big prints suitable for viewing from half-way across a room, just as there long has been for bigger than average paintings. My complaint was with the idea that jumbo size is a _necessary_ condition for a gallery-worthy print, or that this is or should now be the norm for sufficiently "worthy" prints.
-
Economically, it obviates the high-end crop-dslrs as 'pro-sumer' cameras. Most people with the money for serious glass and a serious interest in photography will find little appeal in a $1500-1800 APS-C camera when a D800 can be had for $3K.
I do not see that at all, so long as the smaller formats continue to offer higher sensor resolution in lp/mm (smaller pixels) and thus genuinely allow the use of less long telephoto focal lengths and thus smaller, lighter lenses ... along with the saving of say $1500, or the equal-cost alternative of having several more lenses, or carrying two bodies and so having two lenses ready for immediate use.
Also, for anyone interested in using high frame rates in action photography, there are many better and far less expensive options than the D800; it is a great camera, but not a universal tool by any means.
It is interesting though to see the same fact (the D800) used by some to predict a move away from larger formats and by others to predict a move away from smaller formats! An "inkblot test" of peoples' format preferences, perhaps?
-
I do not see that at all, so long as the smaller formats continue to offer higher sensor resolution in lp/mm (smaller pixels) and thus genuinely allow the use of less long telephoto focal lengths and thus smaller, lighter lenses ... along with the saving of say $1500, or the equal-cost alternative of having several more lenses, or carrying two bodies and so having two lenses ready for immediate use.
Also, for anyone interested in using high frame rates in action photography, there are many better and far less expensive options than the D800; it is a great camera, but not a universal tool by any means.
It is interesting though to see the same fact (the D800) used by some to predict a move away from larger formats and by others to predict a move away from smaller formats! An "inkblot test" of peoples' format preferences, perhaps?
personally, I'm looking at the d800/e like i did my d700 camera when i bought it...as a great all 'rounder body, though the d800 has obvious improvements...but of course there's better solutions for certain things like sports and action,...just like i'm guessing some would never give up their large format cameras or M9's...i guess that's what bjl just said...
again, personally, it's a tool, and small pocket cams, m4/3's, etc. have their place if they fulfill your needs...I can see having an olympus em5 as a take everywhere cam or maybe fuji's xpro1 with a couple of lenses, plus nikons d800 for what it can do...use what i need when i need it to get the job done...
-
I guess like just about everybody I'm interested in the D800, and I've tried one. I'm sure it lets you make very big, sharp prints, but I don't think it's for me. I just didn't much like the feel. The big sticking point for me is just what Matthew Cromer said in an earlier post: Live View is just crippled without a tilting screen. So I'm going to stick with my (not actually discontinued yet, Matthew) Olympus E-5, despite a sensor which most here wouldn't even bother to sneer it, because of it's fabulous usability as a photographic tool which, now & then, gets me shots that a Nikon D800 probably wouldn't.
However, a D900 with the E-5's screen, that might tempt me :-)
(oh, and add me to the "sometimes big is TOO big" faction, too)
David,
The E-5 doesn't have phase detect AF in liveview mode, does it?
I thought the only Olympus (and the first dSLR!) to do this was the E-330.
In my experience, contrast detect AF is way too slow for moving subjects using dSLR lenses. But perhaps the E-5 does it and pulls it off?
-
because of it's fabulous usability as a photographic tool. . .
This is the absolute crux of it for me. You've nailed it.
The D800 is a fabulous dSLR, but with essentially no innovation in the "fabulous photographic tool" department over the capabilities of the F100 over the intervening baker's dozen years since. And of course Nikon doesn't even make the sensor or the LCD!
Why did we have more innovation from Canon and Nikon in the film SLR era than the digital SLR era? Autofocus, auto aperture, image stabilization, eye-start etc. all came before the digital era. What innovations does Nikon bring to the table with the D800? Writing a fat check to Sony to source their latest sensor?!
Why are some of the best and most talented photographers out there writing articles like this one (http://oopoomoo.com/2012/04/shooting-blind-for-better-action-portraits-of-dogs/) talking about how to work around glaring, obvious deficiencies in the abilities of their gear to deliver the goods? It was obvious ten years ago what dSLRs needed to become. Why have Canon and Nikon utterly failed to deliver that? Why are their cameras only useable for action or social photography "stuck to your head" unless you are shooting video, in which case they are alternately completely useless through the viewfinder (and lack functional autofocus, period)?!
-
I've got a couple of analogies that I think are instructive. Aviation is a mature technology just as digital photography is a mature technology. When Beechcraft built the Starship, Cessna Chairman, Russ Meyer said that aviation is evolutionary not revolutionary. He was correct. You will never find a Beech Starship now. Many of the advancements you mention were developed during the film era for Nikon and Canon, and they were great advancements, but they were evolutionary. After a certain point in the development of a technology, advancement comes at a slower pace and every increment is hard-earned. That doesn't mean there isn't value in the advances or that it would be better to hold them in reserve until a larger advancement could be debuted. As far as the manufacture of components goes, Cessna Citations are among the most advanced of light jets and they have an enviable safety record, and yet they don't build the engines. Pratt and Whitney builds most of the engines. I think that point is irrelevant. I don't care that Nikon doesn't manufacture the sensors or displays. I would rather they source the best they can or develop strategic partnerships and work at their highest value developments. We live in an age of undeniable technological mastery. As photographers we have tremendous tools that would be unimaginable just a few years ago and yet we can complain over the lack of even greater advancement. My grandfather was a British Army officer and served at a time when cannon were hauled around behind horses, yet he lived to see manned space flight.
-
As far as the manufacture of components goes, Cessna Citations are among the most advanced of light jets and they have an enviable safety record, and yet they don't build the engines. Pratt and Whitney builds most of the engines. I think that point is irrelevant. I don't care that Nikon doesn't manufacture the sensors or displays. I would rather they source the best they can or develop strategic partnerships and work at their highest value developments.
I completely agree: there is a silly dogma [pandemic in internet forums] that it is _always_ better to do everything in-house, whereas the reality is far different. Pardon the overworked territory, but Apple's amazing resurgence and growth to its current success was driven in part by a move away from an excess of in-house proprietary components and manufacturing to a policy of more outsourcing and sharing of state-of-the-art components (like Intel processors) where appropriate. With a suitable dose of in-house secret sauce too, of course; going to the other extreme of commoditizing the product as a whole is also risky.
Also, given that Nikon is the dominant customer for Sony's DSLR-sized sensors (selling far more through its cameras than Sony and Pentax together do through theirs) the relationship is likely to be akin to that between the government and a military contractor, or between a wealthy home buyer and architect/building company, not the more basic retail style of a person purchasing one of many identical manufactured single-wide houses off a display lot. Especially given that Nikon has a significant amount of IP in the realm of sensors, which it likely shares with Sony (or whoever) for its sensors.
In recent years, sensor teams like Sony-Nikon-Pentax, and even Panasonic-Olympus, seem to have made better progress than the DIYers at Canon, Samsung, and Fujifilm.
-
Why did we have more innovation from Canon and Nikon in the film SLR era than the digital SLR era?
Perhaps the low hanging fruit has been taken.
Perhaps continuity is also important to their customers.
Perhaps those corporations are content to reap the profit from previous innovation until their market share is threatened.
-
Colorado Dave. Goodness me, I thought it was only old girl photographers (young girls, old photographers for the pedants amongst us) like moi had ever even heard of Russ Meyer! Exactly what his input on aircraft is worth beats me, but then much does, so I won’t push it. Head honcho of an aircraft firm even! Wow! All that and chickies too: luck favours the lucky. ;-(
MatthewCromer. Um… exactly what was this great era of innovation from CaNik during the film slr era? I seem to remember having a brand new Exakta Varex llA in the 50s and then a llB and they were as hot as it got; replete with film cutting knife built in, they allowed all sorts of tricks with film lengths/use. Interchangeable screens, finders, interchangeable lenses, pre-set diaphragms, it was already all there in the 50s and much earlier, without CaNik. And don't forget the Asahi, Miranda and similar competitors of the era.
I bought a new Nikon F when I could, a new F2 and then a new F4s (whose ‘innovation’, semi-auto film spooling sucked big time) until, getting rid of that, I took a step backwards to a real 35mm slr and a new F3. Backwards progress, you might say, but progress nonetheless for me. As for the tricks such as af etc, yes, if you feel you can’t live or work without it, but thousands already did and probably many (again, like myself) still do. Come to think of it, the F did everything valuable that the F4 could do other than be as fast in the shutter, and it took the cheapo FM and FM2 to bring in higher synch speeds. In essence, those flagship cameras stood still, bar some ergonomic changes such as softer edges that played more gently in the hands when held for hours of the day.
If anything, I’d suggest that ‘progress’ in dslr cameras is a cynical ploy to give the market a priapic woodie (tautology?) and that to make things even more cynical, if that’s possible, quality control departments have been closed in the factories and new, external departments opened, called General Public, where running costs are negligible and no pension schemes need be applied.
Was a time that one could buy a Nikkor and just know that it was as good as it got; now, go buy a lens somewhere and you know nothing, and have to find out afresh with each new purchase whether, like Friday night, you brought home a lulu or a lemon.
Yep, things sure are a lot better now. Other than photographs, of course: they were as good then as they have been since.
Rob C
-
Colorado Dave. Goodness me, I thought it was only old girl photographers (young girls, old photographers for the pedants amongst us) like moi had ever even heard of Russ Meyer! Exactly what his input on aircraft is worth beats me, but then much does, so I won’t push it. Head honcho of an aircraft firm even! Wow! All that and chickies too: luck favours the lucky. ;-(
I'm confused by your post. I don't know who you're referring to, but Russ Meyer was the Chairman of Cessna during a period of great innovation.
-
Rob, different Russ Meyer! Rob is refering to the porno king who had an obsession with large, make that huge, mammary glands.
-
Size
"Game Changer"
Image Quality
The three main themes in this discussion - so far, and a few thoughts about them:
Size - I can't think in terms of what's big or small, nor do I think it's important. I think "right-sizing" an image IS important. There was a superb essay on this website a long time ago - I forget whose - discussing this subject in depth. Some pictures just want to be 40*60 inches and others just want to be 8*10 inches, and others in-between. hard to say what the "rules" are making this the case, but it is. Most likely it's the subject matter - some is very expansive and like space, other is introspective and prefers concentration within a narrow space. The nice thing about a camera like the D800 is that we can have all of it in one convenient portable package. We don't need to take positions on image size to appreciate the scope and flexibility of this camera.
Game Changer - the first question that crosses my mind when I hear this term is "what game is being changed?" I think in this case there is an answer and its not hyperbole. It's the first time ever that 36 very high quality megapixels has been put into such a compact, user-friendly (even with the tripod) package, and by the way gotten DxO's highest ever rating for sensor performance of any camera it has EVER tested, including Phase One digital backs. Yes, it's evolutionary along a continuum, but evolution reaches a point that it s, and the game this camera will change is the absolute NEED to buy an MF system for anything higher than 24 MP. So for people who want to make large, very high resolution prints from a camera that's easy to carry around and less of a PITA to use than any MF system I've seen or handled, this does change the game. I expect it and its successors will make the kind of inroads on most (not all) MF gear that the Canon 1Ds made on Hasselblad film systems - basically compress demand for them below the level of commercial viability. Models and companies will exit the industry. Hold on to this prediction for three years and let's revert to see if I was right. Predictions are predictions after all, but I think this one has a reasonable probability of occurrence.
Image Quality - It depends on image size, resolution, DR of the sensor, lenses, subject matter and skill. I trust Mark's test results because he knows how to perform these tests and what to look for and he tells us what he sees. I could have been tempted to run a competition between a friend's Nikon D800 and my Phase D40+ system, but I won't do it, because I think it would be a waste of time. Like in the evolution of printers, important IQ differences attributable solely to the gear is becoming a thing of the past as the technologies mature. That too is a game changer.
And one final note: the value of used gear begins to fall exponentially soon after you leave the shop with it. It's just a brutal fact of life these days. So whatever I buy from now on (a) I really "need", and (b) I intend to keep using for a long time.
-
And one final note: the value of used gear begins to fall exponentially soon after you leave the shop with it. It's just a brutal fact of life these days. So whatever I buy from now on (a) I really "need", and (b) I intend to keep using for a long time.
For those of us considering an upgrade, we realize that our existing body is worth a lot less right now than two months ago. In my case if I do make the plunge the D300 goes into a blind drawing between my two daughters to see who gets it (maybe I don't want to present at this event???). What I'm interested in is the performance of my legacy nikkor lenses from the old time film days (they seem to be quite good on my D300 despite not autofocusing or aperture adjusting, though the latter is less important since I usually keep that fixed).
-
Good question about the lenses Alan - the issue is of course that they are not "optimized" for digital, and the resolution of that sensor is so fine it could make a difference to ultimately achievable image quality; so the real question is whether what you will get using those lenses meets your expectations and from there, whether investing in a D800 is worthwhile paired with those lenses. I don't know the answer, but I suggest there is a real question here.
-
Regarding print size and comparison to paintings, it is worth noting that the great Dutch master Vermeer painted on small canvases as opposed to really big. I have an Ansel Adams Yosemite special edition print (Merced River in Autumn) that is 8x10 and it's magnificent.
There are, of course, small paintings, but not all small paintings are small because the artist preferred smallness. For example, Vermeer's most famous painting, the Girl with the Pearl Earring is 15x17 inches, more or less, which is somewhat bigger than the common "large" size print back in the dark(room) ages, of 14x16. But the reason Vermeer painted it that size, I believe, is that it's a portrait, and it's nearly life-sized. When you're in the room with it, it's like you're talking to somebody. On the other hand, his arguably second-most-famous painting, View of Delft, which is about a ten-second walk from the Girl, is about 39x46 inches.
There are all kinds of reasons to make photos (and paintings) different sizes, both large and small. But not many people really had the option to print large, until recently, and for a whole lot of mechanical reasons, rather than artistic preferences...which was my point.
-
But not many people really had the option to print large, until recently ... which was my point.
True; only dogmatists would deny that there is a place, and a time, and a season for very large photographic prints. But my point in response was that, conversely, most painters did not have "the option to paint small", given the relatively pathetic resolution limits of paint brushes. So their size choices were subject to some constraints that do not apply to photographs. Most paintings have to be viewed from a yard or more away if you wish to see the image rather than the blobs and streaks of paint (an oily version of pixelation?)
Actually, the "Girl with a Pearl Earring" is a fascinating example: get too close, and the ear-ring is a crude, ill-formed squiggle that in isolation you would have trouble recognizing as an earring or a pearl, but as you back off, it becomes strikingly recognizable. (A fine illustration of the disconnect between resolution and artistry: are you listening, KLaban?)
To put it another way: one thing that painters don't have to worry about is being diffraction limited!
-
Wile Mark is prone to over worked hyperbole, as opposed to mere hyperbole ;), I have to come to his defense on the 'game changer' issue. It is in the same league as the original 1Ds in its potential for impact on the industry.
It was 5 years after the arrival of the 1Ds before the D3 arrived (Nikon's first full frame camera.)
I wonder if it will be another 5 years before Canon is able to deliver something as good as, or better than, the D800?
-
MatthewCromer. Um… exactly what was this great era of innovation from CaNik during the film slr era?
Well, I don't know about great but...
Canon debuted the pellicle in the EOS RT (first autofocus camera to have this feature.)
Canon debuted eye-tracking focus in the EOS 5 (feature not found in any other brand?)
... there may be others...
-
Rob C.,
It seems that your point is that advances in automation (focus, exposure level setting, film advance) and operating speed are irrelevant to you, and then, yes, maybe not a lot has changed except the replacement of chemical emulsions by electronic sensors.
But if all such technological innovations of the last fourty years or so are irrelevant to you, I think it just means that you and the 21st century do not have much to say to each other. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
-
I really feel you can't make such blanket statements about other people. I still have my Kodak 14n but will get rid of it soon. I've already disposed of my 5D. My Pentax K5 offers all the quality I need in a very compact package. My G3 I'm testing appears to do the job to in an even smaller package. Why would I want to waste £2500 on the behemoth of the D800 when I can spend £300 on the G3 and get all the quality I need for an A3 print that will fit in a coat pocket.
Economically, it obviates the high-end crop-dslrs as 'pro-sumer' cameras. Most people with the money for serious glass and a serious interest in photography will find little appeal in a $1500-1800 APS-C camera when a D800 can be had for $3K.
It's not fan-boy talk to say this camera will likely be looked-back on as a real milestone in the digital camera industry.
- N.
-
I really feel you can't make such blanket statements about other people. I still have my Kodak 14n but will get rid of it soon. I've already disposed of my 5D. My Pentax K5 offers all the quality I need in a very compact package. My G3 I'm testing appears to do the job to in an even smaller package. Why would I want to waste £2500 on the behemoth of the D800 when I can spend £300 on the G3 and get all the quality I need for an A3 print that will fit in a coat pocket.
I don't think Nick was making blanket statements about other people - he was projecting where the market may be going based on prices relative to technical specs. I projected in my post that the D800 will make inroads on MF because it now becomes possible to do a great deal of what ~40MP MF does for 5K instead of 30K. Nick is projecting it will make inroads on the higher-end crop DSLRs. It's a very interesting line of argument and makes sense - at least to me. If there is a small difference of price for a very large difference in technical specs, it's entirely reasonable to expect many people to "buy-up", just as it's reasonable vis a vis MF to expect them to "buy down". This camera just happens to have (I'm sure not by accident) a very strategic price point for what it offers.
-
I've already disposed of my 5D. My Pentax K5 offers all the quality I need in a very compact package. My G3 I'm testing appears to do the job to in an even smaller package.
For the sake of argument, I can conceive of one way that advances at a given format size like the D800 could hurt a smaller format like APS-C, in defiance of the persistent trend towards smaller formats "getting the job done", and that is that an even smaller format encroaches from the other side, and we move back to the traditional scheme where the sequence of formats went mainly by a doubling of linear dimensions: using the short edge (also film roll width), 24mm, 42.5mm=1 3/4", 100mm=4”, 8". That could leave a format like the 13mm on the short edge of 4/3 format as a natural next size down from 35mm format and strand APS-C.
I do not see this happening with DSLR's, where both "incumbency" and lens sharability with 35mm format favor APS-C formats, but maybe with mirrorless systems, where there is far less priority on backward compatability with "big old 20th century style SLR lenses". Especially if Canon follows Olympus, Panasonic, Nikon, and one half of Pentax in going smaller than APS-C for a mirrorless system.
By the way, my subject line throws in the high end compact format 2/3" because that happens to continue my size halving sequence. As a hostoric quirk, that was the format of the first Olympus DSLR, the fixed lens E-10.
-
Good question about the lenses Alan - the issue is of course that they are not "optimized" for digital, and the resolution of that sensor is so fine it could make a difference to ultimately achievable image quality; so the real question is whether what you will get using those lenses meets your expectations and from there, whether investing in a D800 is worthwhile paired with those lenses. I don't know the answer, but I suggest there is a real question here.
I've not done any kind of chart testing, only taken pictures and they seem to perform quite well with a digital back. The 105mm, f2.5 was one of the best 'film' lens that Nikon made. I guess I should download some test charts and see how it stacks up.
-
There are all kinds of reasons to make photos (and paintings) different sizes, both large and small. But not many people really had the option to print large, until recently, and for a whole lot of mechanical reasons, rather than artistic preferences...which was my point.
Agreed. If you look at pictures of the set up Ansel Adams had to make 'big' prints you realize how much better we have things today with inkjet printers. I'm sure he would have salivated over the possibility of printing on a 44 inch wide inkjet!
-
YES! I remember that 105mm lens - I used it on a Contax decades ago and it was superb.
-
Good question about the lenses Alan - the issue is of course that they are not "optimized" for digital, and the resolution of that sensor is so fine it could make a difference to ultimately achievable image quality; so the real question is whether what you will get using those lenses meets your expectations and from there, whether investing in a D800 is worthwhile paired with those lenses. I don't know the answer, but I suggest there is a real question here.
Mark, several of the pros on Nikongear have tested many of the so-called legacy lenses on the D800 and found them to be as effective as they were in the past.
-
Mark, several of the pros on Nikongear have tested many of the so-called legacy lenses on the D800 and found them to be as effective as they were in the past.
Interesting. I hadn't seen any of that - and it's encouraging of course, but the more relevant question in this context is how those lenses compare on a Nikon D800 compared with high-end Nikon lenses optimized for digital.
-
Good question about the lenses Alan - the issue is of course that they are not "optimized" for digital, and the resolution of that sensor is so fine it could make a difference to ultimately achievable image quality ...
If lenses were designed for film including the highest resolution B&W films, even the D800 does not yet surpass that, so I would not assume that "film lenses" were all designed with less demanding resolution goals than modern DSLR sensors need. Many yes, but not all.
For example, Kodak TMAX 100 has MTF of 70% or better all the way up to the Nyquist frequency of the D800, just over 100lp/mm. It drops to MTF of 50% only at 125lp/mm, which would need pixel size of under 4 microns, so 54MP in 35mm format.
-
It's not only about resolution - it's about how they concentrate and direct light on the microlenses of the sensor.
http://www.shutterbug.com/content/digitally-optimized-zoom-lenses-do-they-really-make-difference
and tons more stuff:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=lenses+optimized+for+digital&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
-
I've got a couple of analogies that I think are instructive. Aviation is a mature technology just as digital photography is a mature technology.
Let's see. That would put us -- right around 1930 or so in aviation terms, given the amount of time digital imaging has been actively developed. And there weren't any significant changes in aviation between 1930 and today, right? Uhhhh. . .
I'm afraid I find it pretty unlikely that "digital photography is a mature technology".
After a certain point in the development of a technology, advancement comes at a slower pace and every increment is hard-earned. That doesn't mean there isn't value in the advances or that it would be better to hold them in reserve until a larger advancement could be debuted. As far as the manufacture of components goes, Cessna Citations are among the most advanced of light jets and they have an enviable safety record, and yet they don't build the engines. Pratt and Whitney builds most of the engines. I think that point is irrelevant. I don't care that Nikon doesn't manufacture the sensors or displays. I would rather they source the best they can or develop strategic partnerships and work at their highest value developments. We live in an age of undeniable technological mastery. As photographers we have tremendous tools that would be unimaginable just a few years ago and yet we can complain over the lack of even greater advancement. My grandfather was a British Army officer and served at a time when cannon were hauled around behind horses, yet he lived to see manned space flight.
Yeah. So why is Canon still selling "cannon hauled around behind horses" then?
More to the point, why are Sony, Olympus and Panasonic innovating with digital? Why is Nikon innovating with their V1 line and not with their dSLRs? I'm afraid the answer is that their dSLR customers prefer to buy what they are used to, and not go forward with new breakthroughs in technologies.
You can't blame Canon and Nikon for building the dSLRs their customers want.
I wasn't BTW criticizing Nikon for buying their sensors from Sony (in fact, Canon should consider doing the same). I was simply noting that the actual breakthrough with the Nikon D800 (a really kickass sensor at an affordable price) wasn't even their doing.
-
1) Perhaps the low hanging fruit has been taken.
2) Perhaps continuity is also important to their customers.
3) Perhaps those corporations are content to reap the profit from previous innovation until their market share is threatened.
I'll take 2) and 3).
-
I wasn't BTW criticizing Nikon for buying their sensors from Sony (in fact, Canon should consider doing the same). I was simply noting that the actual breakthrough with the Nikon D800 (a really kickass sensor at an affordable price) wasn't even their doing.
Does it matter whose "doing" it was? The main issue is what it is and what it costs.
-
MatthewCromer. Um… exactly what was this great era of innovation from CaNik during the film slr era?
I was more specifically referring to the autofocus SLR era (although Minolta shares a lot of the credit for that particular breakthrough).
They definitely pushed forward the state of the art in autofocus, and Canon's introduction of IS was an obvious big win.
-
It's not only about resolution - it's about how they concentrate and direct light on the microlenses of the sensor.
http://www.shutterbug.com/content/digitally-optimized-zoom-lenses-do-they-really-make-difference
My comment was addressed to your mention of resolution right after the mention of "digitally optimized". And agreed, issues like controlling flare due to sensors reflecting back more light than film are issues to some degree.
On the other hand, beware quoting seven year old sources like that Shutterbug piece: the worries about microlenses seem to have gone away, with the microlens designs in modern SLR sensors having off-perpendicular sensitivity good enough that there are usually no problems with SLR lenses, whose exit pupils have to be moderately far from the sensor anyway. There are problems with some rangefinder lenses, and maybe with some shift lenses.
-
Rob, different Russ Meyer! Rob is refering to the porno king who had an obsession with large, make that huge, mammary glands.
Thanks for seeing the humour of the twin names; I suppose it might just be a generation thing but no, wait, as far as mammary memory serves, Russ was way ahead of the arrival of plastic boobs - oh, of course, that means it must be age-related after all!
Confused -
Rob C
-
Rob C.,
It seems that your point is that advances in automation (focus, exposure level setting, film advance) and operating speed are irrelevant to you, and then, yes, maybe not a lot has changed except the replacement of chemical emulsions by electronic sensors.
But if all such technological innovations of the last fourty years or so are irrelevant to you, I think it just means that you and the 21st century do not have much to say to each other. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
You are on the money. And my point is, to drive it further, that most of these 'innovations' don't really make better pictures. Pictures are basically about the mind, and because somebody likes to let the machine change focus, change exposure etc. for him doesn't make his work any the more superior at all. We had motor drives decades ago - they failed to make better shots, because all they did was allow chance a greater say and chance is notoriously unikely to co-operate with the lazy or inept. (However, they did encourage higher film sales.)
Someone mentioned the pelicle system of viewfinder - it didn't last and was seen as a novelty, period.
Gimmicks sell cameras; they don't usually create the conditions for better images. As far as I can see, digital capture has only created an entirely new camera industry at the expense of a hell of a lot of other established companies, jobs and the value of money invested in equipment itself. However, I am more than willing to admit that digital home printing has opened the door to a lot of more user-friendly opportunities for print making. Having written that, I have not seen any great number of prints that's been any more worth the making digitally than via the old ways. Do it with a brush, a trowel, a stick or a spoon or even through a lens - unless the image has something intrinsically worthwhile to state, it matters not at all that (or how) it is created.
And that's the basic, bottom l¡ne that digital has never been able to disguise.
Rob C
-
I agree that any camera per se will not guarantee a good image (as far as aesthetics and artistic vision go).
It is also sad that the art of analogue developing and printing is largely dead (BTW my only exposure to this was doing electron microscopy at university - there's an expensive camera for you!). It is true that those that "develop" digitally and subsequently print now using experience developed prior to the digital era may have an advantage over us who have largely come to the craft in the digital era.
Many companies who have fallen by the wayside, most notably Kodak, held part of the future in their hands and just did not look ahead and see the opportunities or take advantage of them.
Nonetheless there are tremendous advantages in digital imaging.
The learning curve can be exceptionally steep due to the immediate feedback afforded by digital. The only reason my photography has advanced is due to this. Shooting slide film just didn't allow me to improve my image making - the interval between shooting and viewing was too great (even with good images I couldn't really remember what I had done or what I was really trying to capture from an artistic perspective).
Now I can concentrate on my vision as well as get reasonable feedback straight away (critical focus may be an exception at times). Viewing images on a monitor within an hour or two of shooting closes the loop nicely.
Personally I hope that film photography never dies off completely. It is still an important, if small, part of photography be it professional or recreational.
My humble opinion
Tony Jay
-
Don't know whether it is a game changer, nor why it is important that it could be a game changer, but as someone having just spent 30+ hours over 3 days shooting panoramic landscape with one in the dark forests of World heritage site Yakushima, I can clearly state that:
- the D800 is a very good landscape camera, close to ideal in fact. I'll be posting some images soon,
- I have had zero issues with live view, even in pretty dark situations.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
.......... As far as I can see, digital capture has only created an entirely new camera industry at the expense of a hell of a lot of other established companies, jobs and the value of money invested in equipment itself. However, I am more than willing to admit that digital home printing has opened the door to a lot of more user-friendly opportunities for print making. Having written that, I have not seen any great number of prints that's been any more worth the making digitally than via the old ways. Do it with a brush, a trowel, a stick or a spoon or even through a lens - unless the image has something intrinsically worthwhile to state, it matters not at all that (or how) it is created.
And that's the basic, bottom l¡ne that digitsl has never been able to disguise.
Rob C
Well, with all due respect for your right to your own opinions Rob, frankly I don't think you're seeing far enough. But what one sees partly depends upon what one wants to look for, and that may be the determinative issue here. I was actually just thinking about this yesterday. A couple of days back I was browsing Amazon.ca for a book on another topic, and you know how they bring up, based on your browsing history, other books you may be interested in. Normally I don't react well to this kind of thing because there is an underlying sense of being watched and tracked - well not only a sense, the reality - ANYHOW, setting that aside, one title really caught my fancy - "The Dawn of the Color Photograph: Albert Kahn's Archives of the Plant" by David Okuefuna. This book is a sequel to a BBC program on the subject. Looked interesting and had a string of highly positive reviews so I bought the book and am I ever pleased I did. It's a treasure. It's about Kahn's initiative to create a world-wide collection of colour photographs of the state of human existence on the planet nack in the early 1900s using the then new autochrome process (variants of which survived into the 1950s), invented by the Lumiere brothers in France and the first practical approach for making colour photographs on a commercial scale. You can look-up the details of the process - seen from today's perspective it's disarmingly simple - very tiny dyed grains of potato starch serving as colour filters affixed to glass plates of photographic emulsion, exposed and processed by reversal to yield a positive transparency. Considering what it is and when, the results are truly remarkable and the images have tremendous "character"; but when you look at these beside what comes out of a modern inkjet printer and compare the processes involved from capture to end-product, you can't help but be impressed with the enormous contribution that technological progress has made to image quality and the ease of making them in terms of every technical metric you can throw at it.
-
Mark –
You may be right – it’s only my own view tempered by what I’ve experienced, but also, you must remember that my response was to a post about CaNik’s supposed great ‘innovations’ during the slr era, and that doesn’t go as far back as Autochrome! So whilst I may be looking insufficiently far ahead, you’ve looked a bit far in the opposite direction, too.
I also admitted that digital printing, as distinct from digital capture, is a great step ahead in convenience and, in some ways but not all, print manipulation and control is now easier for the newer printer (the person).
Rob C
-
Yes Rob, I was taking the grand overview, not only in time, but through the whole technical chain, because to get to the digital prints of the quality we're seeing today, you also want the digital captures. One can do great things with film scans, but they're still not what a Nikon D800 or many other DSLRs can deliver as the starting point for the prints. The prints are the end-result of an evolution of a technological continuum through each link in the chain from capture to end-product, with all the advances in materials technology, design technology, software and firmware development etc. that are brought to bear.