17tse compared with 23HR

[CBarrett]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Kirk.  World leading?  Maybe if I keep busting my butt for the next ten years.  

And I agree, Willem, Griffith's work is really quite nice.

I have a simple test to determine whether someone has ascended to this level:
Google their name.  If your results reveal pages upon pages of articles, galleries representing them, various exhibits and publications while not actually leading you to their own website... BINGO!

I've stated all my personal preferences here before.  I prefer to work with a view camera, that means I use a digital back.  It allows me to shift independently of rise, swing independently of tilt, have several really excellent lenses with no gaps in the focal lineup and all of this actually makes my work faster than if I was using a dslr.  When trying to work the way that I am used to, I have actually found dslrs / pc lenses to hinder my workflow.  Maybe if I was required to make a lot of pictures on my shoots and if I got used to the little cameras I would eventually be more productive/comfortable with them.  But until circumstances require me to change, I'm still going to shoot with the system that gives me the best files achievable.

I'm really happy with my current system.  For me, it all just works.  None of us are the same, though, and this end-all-be-all argument is superfluous.

Merry Christmas, People.  Have a great holiday and then get out there and shoot, with whatever gets your pictures!

-C Barrett

[rainer_v]

I have a simple test to determine whether someone has ascended to this level:
Google their name.  If your results reveal pages upon pages of articles, galleries representing them, various exhibits and publications while not actually leading you to their own website... BINGO!


-C Barrett

i agree once more.

but i want to state also that digital leaded some ( many )  of the formerly great film photographers to speed up their working process and to shoot now 50 or 100 projects a year when shooting formerly 10 or 20. this is not leading  in all cases to the same quality the same people had archived with film.  
meanwhile some of these shooters can be found in every second issue of ar or similar magazines this does not mean  that they are "world leading" in terms of quality, although in terms of quantity they might be. this sums up to be commercially a very good biz for these guys but lets see where the ball runs in longer terms.
the cards have been mixed new in the last years and i believe there is MUCH to expect from the new generation of photographers who grew up with digital and did not simply replace the film working style with digital to speed up the process of shooting or to reduce shooting costs, but not creating a similar interesting aesthetic as the same people had done formerly using film.
its very interesting:  in general the budgets went down as a result from a kind of price dumping also from some of the names tes claimed in this second class of "world leaders ", interestingly the number of photographers who have been straight enough to hold on with an own style of shooting, which is not only dictated by an "good enough" view of the things mixed with an "as cheap and fast enough" shooting process, decreased by a big number, which leads to the strange effect that, although the competion became much stronger in general in this architecture biz, there seem to be more space on the top than it was some years ago. the top architect is here not only the biggest name and the biggest building, its also an architect who is willing to work close together with a photographer and who is willed to pay for this, and not the ones ( which are many of the famous ones ) who buy as cheap as possible from an increasing number of photographers the images which may fit best the daily needs of a project, but not creating a comprehensive portfolio.
the individuality of these photowork often gets lost and i.m.o. this has a lot of to do with making good business but nothing with "top class" in the sense of aesthetic which might surpass the daily publication or archival needs.
in result this could be even  a good situation for young shooters, as long they have the strong energy and wish to go to the top ....

[TMARK]

:-)

I am wondering what happened with the D3x in the commercial world. Is it just DOA because it's $7500 and the 5D is $2500? The dudes I know who work at Calumet say they are selling none of those D3xs.

Nikon was too late to the full frame party for the NYC market.  Everyone had Nikon in the film days, and loads of lenses, but then their digicams failed to deliver, until the D3.  But by that time everyone had sold their lenses and bought a full frame Canon and lots of lenses.  There is no incentive to switch back to Nikon, although I think the D700, D3 and D3x are better than their Canon counterparts, but only at the margins.

[rethmeier]

TMARK,
you nailed it on the head.
Nikon was to late to get of the mark with full frame DSLR.
However,that has changed now and there has been migration from Canon to Nikon(Like me)

When I bought the D3x it was(is) the best Pro DSLR out there.
Canon's new 1dsMk4  will out do the D3x and Nikon's new D4x will out do the Canon again.

At the end of the day,both Nikon and Canon make excellent DSLR's

I prefer Nikon (at the moment)

Best,
Willem.

[lisa_r]

In any case, the 5D2 seems to be outselling both the D3x and the 1Ds3 by about 300:1.

Wondering if the prices on new flagship dslrs will ever come down...their sales really seem to have slowed way down.

[uaiomex]

Till they both come with a FF dslr with pro feautures at a sensible price.
In that I concour with K Rockwell.  
Merry xmas all.

Eduardo

In any case, the 5D2 seems to be outselling both the D3x and the 1Ds3 by about 300:1.

Wondering if the prices on new flagship dslrs will ever come down...their sales really seem to have slowed way down.

[rethmeier]

In any case, the 5D2 seems to be outselling both the D3x and the 1Ds3 by about 300:1.

Wondering if the prices on new flagship dslrs will ever come down...their sales really seem to have slowed way down.

Well hello?
How many more Golfs do they sell compared to Porches?

Of course a camera that cost $2500 will outsell a camera that cost 3 times more.

Also the 5D2 is aimed for a broader audience.

The new 1DSmk4 will still be around the $7K mark and so will the 4Dx etc.

It just cost more to make a full pro body.

[JeffKohn]

It just cost more to make a full pro body.

I agree with pretty much everything you said except this part. If the price premium were just due to the rugged pro body, that wouldn't explain why the 1D bodies have always been so much cheaper than the 1Ds when it's really just the sensor and imaging pipeline that differs.

The 1Ds and D3x are priced for market positioning. They're meant to be premium cameras showcasing the pinnacle of camera technology for their prospective brands.  Nikon and Canon _could_ sell these cameras at a lower price point, but they don't want to. Which kind of sucks for Nikon users since there's only one camera in the lineup with more than 12mp resolution.

[arashm]

TMARK,
you nailed it on the head.
Nikon was to late to get of the mark with full frame DSLR.

Best,
Willem.

I also think they are grossly late with a second High Megapixel body that's around the $4k mark, sort of like a 5D2 price range.
am