Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Question for Michael  (Read 4970 times)

  • Guest
Question for Michael
« on: August 27, 2004, 04:05:51 PM »

[font color=\'#000000\']Its simply isn't possible to answer this question. It's like asking if you put a large engine in a VW Beetle if it would be equivalent to a Porche.

Maybe not a good analogy, but I hope you get my point.

Michael[/font]
Logged

  • Guest
Question for Michael
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2004, 08:11:04 PM »

[font color=\'#000000\']Can you imagine the lynching party after such a comparison, regardless of the outcome?  ::

Michael[/font]
Logged

Sfleming

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 339
    • http://
Question for Michael
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2004, 09:43:13 PM »

[font color=\'#000000\']Kenneth
This  is JUST my opinion.   I am  not an expert.

I don't get caught up in the heavy duty technology.  I have  a lazy mind.  I depend on those  who love to delve into such things to give me  the run-down.

But when it comes  to comparing digicam sensors  to 1.6x crop factor sensors all I need to know  is that  the  digicam sensors  are the  size  of my little fingernail (ok I have big  hands) and  the  1.6x crop factor sensors are  orders  of  magnitude  larger with comparitively huge  photo-sites.

Then there's the  lenses.  No  comparison  again.

Digicams are  fun cameras that can  make  good  4x6 prints  and put  impressive  images  on  a computer monitor.  I like my 10D but it's absolutely the smallest  sensor I will own untill things change to a revolutionary degree.  I still don't print  anything  beyond 8x10 with  it.

If  I want to make large prints  I use film and I eagerly await  the day I  can afford the equivilant of a  p-25 although  that  may be years ... or never.  Maybe I'll get the Kodak back  Michael uses in an  interim step one day but  even  that  is out  of  my league right  now.

I'm not  even  tempted  by the 1Ds any more because  I'm not  willing  to  invest that much money in a camera  that is 'out-teched' every two  years.  

It all depends  on what you shoot.  If I was  a wildlife  shooter the 1Ds would be  perfect.  As a landscape  enthusiast I have just decided  to stay with  film for now  but I got the Contax  AF so at least  I  could step up  to digital without having  to invest  in a whole new  system.

I guess  what  I'm  trying  to say  is ... don't take any digicam very serriously.  They are not  for serrious photography.  But again ... that's just my self-centered  opinion.[/font]
Logged

Sfleming

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 339
    • http://
Question for Michael
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2004, 09:30:32 PM »

[font color=\'#000000\']
Quote
Thanks to all for responding. I use a Hasselblad for portraits and some landscapes but rely on my Maxxum 9 with 8 lenses for wildlife and most landscapes. I'm hesitant to make the digital transition because of rapid depreciation to get equivalent quality so I've been scanning negs. But the digital darkroom siren begs me to speed it up.
Don't blame you for being hesitant.  The price  of entry is madness given that the tech progresses SO fast at this point.

A year ago or so I was  sorta where you were at and bought a G5 along with lens adapters for wide and tele. It was so unsatifactory that I sold it in two weeks and bought a 10D.

All the 10D did was make me wish I had a 1Ds because I shoot a lot of wide angle.

I've now taken the vertical/battery grip off the 10D, keep the 50mm f/1.4 on it almost all the  time and consider it my fun/casual photography camera.

I'm quite  happy to have gone back to film with the Contax 645 although  not happy enough  to go all the way back to 4 x 5 (I gotta sell that thing).  I'll go digital again when digital makes sense.

Michael is fast with  the gun when it comes to defending the price of heavy duty digital but he's just not thinking straight.  Unless somebody brings the price of MF digital down out of the  stratosphere it will cease to be very soon.  Why professional photographers are willing to drop $33k for a back when a 1Ds does the  same thing .... easier ... is beyond me. Something has to change fast or MF is as dead as the 454 Chevy.

The  only photographers who actually NEED 22MP are landscape shooters  who want  to make  truly large prints.  Everybody else  is throwing their money  away.  They  rave and rave over on  robgalbraith.com about how incredible the  files  are  but the wiser ones over their remind  them they don't need all those pixels for  even  a Vogue sized double page spread.  Sure ... it's nice ... and exciting ... but it's not worth  an extra $25k.

If nature and wildlife is  your thing then wait for the  next  1Ds and dump the  Minolta.  It's an incredible camera and  the product  is unbelievable. A year ago  Michael was  so in love with his  Canon he  started saying he was  mostly  into  wildlife shooting 'these days'.  I notice  now he makes  most  of his  images with  his  Contax and MF back and they are landscape images.

Or ... be happy with film.  But regardless, forget about digicams and  even the crop factor DSLRs.  You  will not be happy with anything less than the  real thing.

Maybe Nikon will come out with a midrange  priced full frame camera.  Lucky you ... you can go either  way.[/font]
Logged

Kenneth Sky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 424
    • http://
Question for Michael
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2004, 09:31:07 AM »

[font color=\'#000000\']sorry for the spelling error Jonathan[/font]
Logged

Willowroot

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 120
    • http://www.willowroot.ca
Question for Michael
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2004, 02:55:30 PM »

Quote
[font color=\'#000000\']Jonathon,
I think you're right, but.... I,m going to give it one more month and see what the Minolta D7 has to offer mainly because of my investment in Minolta mount lenses. If it turns out to be a dud (i.e. behind the curve), I'll dump all my Minolta equipment and (sob) cross over to the dark side.
Ken[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Good plan, we've been waiting this long, another month won't hurt.  D7 is very unlikely to be a dud IMO.[/font]
Logged
Jason Elias
willowroot.ca

Kenneth Sky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 424
    • http://
Question for Michael
« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2004, 02:45:13 PM »

[font color=\'#000000\']Michael,
DxO has just intoduced a component for the Minolta A2 that corrects its deficiencies except one (noise). Does this mean that if you used this application together with Noise Ninja you would get the same technical result as using the Canon 20D?
Ken[/font]
Logged

Kenneth Sky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 424
    • http://
Question for Michael
« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2004, 05:46:21 PM »

[font color=\'#000000\']Michael,
The proof is in the pudding. Since you own an A2 and some of the DxO software wouldn't it be simple for you to aquire the A2 module and run a comparison of an 8"x!0" print against your pre-ordered 10D next month? This is not a spurious question. You have already stated how ergonomic the A2 is and how light it is in the feild. Before any of us join you in investing in heavier albeit superior hardware, which seems to depreciate by the minute, you might do us a service to see if the investment is a value proposition.
Ken[/font]
Logged

boku

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
    • http://www.bobkulonphoto.com
Question for Michael
« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2004, 09:01:18 PM »

Quote
[font color=\'#000000\']Can you imagine the lynching party after such a comparison, regardless of the outcome?  ::

Michael[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Sounds like it already has.

Man, you just can't win.[/font]
Logged
Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...
Play it Straight and Play it True, my Brother.

Kenneth Sky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 424
    • http://
Question for Michael
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2004, 07:14:34 PM »

[font color=\'#000000\']Thanks to all for responding. I use a Hasselblad for portraits and some landscapes but rely on my Maxxum 9 with 8 lenses for wildlife and most landscapes. I'm hesitant to make the digital transition because of rapid depreciation to get equivalent quality so I've been scanning negs. But the digital darkroom siren begs me to speed it up.[/font]
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Question for Michael
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2004, 10:51:24 PM »

Quote
[font color=\'#000000\']Thanks to all for responding. I use a Hasselblad for portraits and some landscapes but rely on my Maxxum 9 with 8 lenses for wildlife and most landscapes.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Have you given much thought to the 1D-MkII? Unless you regularly print larger than 20x30, it has enough detail to meet most photographic needs and then some, and the image noise levels are very impressive. It has excellent AF, a large buffer, and is very responsive. It's ideal for sports and wildlife photography, and would do very well for portraits also as long as you're aren't making really huge prints. The only area where it would fall short is wide angle; the 1.3x crop factor comes in there and going wider than a 20mm equivalent would be difficult (the 16-35L zoom would become a 20.8-45.5mm equivalent). Only you can decide if that is an issue for you or not. I own the 1D-MkII and the 1Ds, and if I had to choose between the two and sell the other, I'd keep the MkII. I don't do a lot of super-wide angle stuff, and the MkII is already resolution overkill for most of my clients' needs. But the speed and responsiveness make it a joy to use.[/font]

Kenneth Sky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 424
    • http://
Question for Michael
« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2004, 09:25:18 AM »

[font color=\'#000000\']Jonathon,
I think you're right, but.... I,m going to give it one more month and see what the Minolta D7 has to offer mainly because of my investment in Minolta mount lenses. If it turns out to be a dud (i.e. behind the curve), I'll dump all my Minolta equipment and (sob) cross over to the dark side.
Ken[/font]
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Question for Michael
« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2004, 12:34:49 PM »

[font color=\'#000000\']I don't sweat that kind of stuff, as long as the incorrect spelling doesn't start with commonly-encountered colorful metaphors. If you do decide to switch to Canon, eBay is probably going to be your best bet for getting a decent price for your Minolta stuff.[/font]
Pages: [1]   Go Up