Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 13   Go Down

Author Topic: 645D vs D3x  (Read 148086 times)

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #180 on: June 09, 2011, 02:01:24 am »




Edmund, have you tried out the D700? Do you have an opinion on how its files compare with those from the more expensive Nikons? Not a hijack - just looking for a brief repy to whether it's really worth spending more on Nikon FF bodies for A3+ max (so far!) printing.

Rob C



Haven't tried the D700. Did have a look at the D3s which has at least 2 stops of better ISO than the D3x. Much better for available light.

The problem with the D3x and Nikon lenses is that it is always very very good and never excellent. The 5DII in my experience varies between very bad and excellent, why I don't know.

MF and the M8 (don't know about 9) have extraordinary enlargeability (making more pixels from what is there) , the D3x it seems, less, the Canon I dunno.

In my opinion, the D3x will flatly render very accurately what is placed in front of it; in a way it is a technical object rather than an artistic instrument. The same seems to go for the lenses, the Canon lenses which I used eg. 85/1.2 have a sparkle or the 50 1.8 a gritty quality, while the Nikon lenses are simply high quality but characterless. The Leica lenses too have some additional "flavor". This doesn't mean the Nikon lenses are bad, my 85/1.4 clearly outresolves even the D3x sensor, it blew the gates off Imatest which uses the sensor to test the lens.

If you have a D3x you do the artistic stuff by changing the light and putting something appropriate in front of the lens, the camera itself is excessively neutral in my book, which may be one of the reasons it hasn't caught on in fashion where people may expect to buy a look.

Re. Leica comparison, I took my D3x up into those places in Utah, and threw all my ability at postprocessing the shots and they were still pretty boring and in some way lack crispness; maybe the guy with the Leica comment is right.

Of course, all the above are just personal opinions. I've worked the D3x into the ground over the past two years, with personal interest stuff, and found that it invariably gets a usable shot whenever I press the shutter button.


Edmund

« Last Edit: June 09, 2011, 02:24:44 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

NigelC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #181 on: June 09, 2011, 03:30:51 am »

The 5DII in my experience varies between very bad and excellent, why I don't know.


[/quote]

Could you elaborate on that? Do you mean depending on subject/lighting or exposure or choice of lens, or something to do with getting post processing right?
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #182 on: June 09, 2011, 03:32:35 am »

Thanks for your reply, Edmund, I suppose I should have expected a similar sort of analysis, really. So much depends on what you put in front of the lens, as you say, that generalisations can't really do anything justice.

I've been doing some rush production of some old shots I did when I first got the D200. Now that I haven't used it for a while, having got myself a D700, returning to the D200 files feels odd: they strike me as very crisp (mainly because I was always using a tripod) but lacking in character of any real, discernable sort. They are being pushed into rather extreme corners of exaggeration because they are now being shown for an architect who, in turn, wants some local 'atmospherics' stuff for his own purposes. The D700 files feel different. This might be because I've been using the thing a lot recently at the highest ISO available in order to get available light stuff of musicians, and unless it has been with lenses longer than the 50mm, hand-held. (The longer lenses are used with a light tripod with only two legs extended: it works beautifully as a much more stable monopod! Just don't forget the third leg isn't out, and let the thing go.)

However, to give the D200 its due: I was very fresh to digital at that time - it was my first digital capture device apart from a scanner! I've picked up a bit more understanding of how things work since then, particularly regarding the danger of blowing highlights which I managed to avoid with trannies.

M9 sounds great, on paper, but I think that however desirable it is, the lack of wysiwyg would kill it for me; even the music stuff has benefitted from the ability to have oof stuff right in front of the lens, and framing the performer. Can't realistically/accurately do that with an RF! (That sort of thinking keeps me safe from spending!)

Thanks for your time, maybe you'll be in Mallorca one day? Nice to meet up.

Rob C
« Last Edit: June 09, 2011, 03:34:35 am by Rob C »
Logged

aaronleitz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #183 on: June 09, 2011, 12:26:40 pm »

I did a post on my blog a few months ago that has some non-controlled environment-non-scientific examples of the D3x's ability to pull detail out of underexposed shadows. The D700 doesn't even come close in my opinion.

http://www.aaronleitz.com/blog/2011/02/26/exploring-dynamic-range-part-1/

Logged

Eduard Kraft

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #184 on: June 09, 2011, 12:31:43 pm »

If we compare the Pentax 645D and Phase One p40+ (portrait, landscape and still life) - it's very interesting!
I am sure - it's real competitors today, but not Nikon D3x  ;)
Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #185 on: June 09, 2011, 01:39:25 pm »

\The 5DII in my experience varies between very bad and excellent, why I don't know.

Edmund



I've never seen a single camera loved and hated as much as the 5d2, in still and motion.

The people that love it, truly adore the camera, the ones that don't (usually people that have spend a lot more money on other cameras) just loathe it.

Personally, for me it's just a tool.

For motion and stills, I find some instances where color, especially skintones are an issue.  The RED has way superior skintones or at least adjustable skintones, our 1ds3, which I consider the skin tone king is also better, but not really a better camera and not as sharp in stills as the 5d2.

Though skintones can be adjusted and it doesn't have the strange pallet I see on the Nikon D3 and D700 so I've yet to use it where I didn't think a quick fix in photoshop wouldn't get me to any desired look.

Now, I have to add a footnote that I've only used the 5d2 on one still shoot and thought I would use it for a brief moment while we switched out cameras and shot the whole week with it.

I think it's much sharper and has less noise than the 1ds3,  if set correctly, but that's just my opinion.

The thing is it's so ground breaking when it comes to really working for a living. 

What's it cost? . . . like 2 grand or something.  Jeez, that's half the price of a lot of lenses and it does so much I almost feel silly buying something that costs more.

I can go over virtually every still shoot I've done and know that had I shot the 5d vs. anything, (except the RED) nobody would have noticed a difference.

When Canon made this camera I bought one on the spot but left it in the box for a few months, waiting for 24p video.

I really thought it would never come and actually, once it did I kind of thought Canon must be smoking something.  Why come out with a camera for $2,500 that does more than their $7,000 camera?

I guess it works because they seem to sell everyone they make and with the recent issues in Japan I think there is still a waiting list.

We have a gig coming up that takes us to a lot of countries, shooting both motion and stills.  In some places I just don't want to take the RED due to security issues and I'm seriously thinking about buying 4 more 5d's sticking a lens on each one and handing a camera to every crew member to wear around their neck to get them in each country safely.  Seems silly, but the way things are going I could probably re sell them later for the same price.

IMO

BC
Logged

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1822
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #186 on: June 09, 2011, 02:27:59 pm »

Good luck finding any to buy at the moment...
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #187 on: June 09, 2011, 06:21:08 pm »

The 5DII in my experience varies between very bad and excellent, why I don't know.




Could you elaborate on that? Do you mean depending on subject/lighting or exposure or choice of lens, or something to do with getting post processing right?

5DII crispness seems to be something to do with the light. The other problem is that focus appears off by a random amount, on a per image basis. I often use my 5DII with a 50mm as a snapshot camera on business trips and short vacations (light, looks plasticky and cheap), and have come back with *batches* of images ranging from sublimely crisp, fashion magazine tone and quality, to total mush. And I don't know why, but it seems something to do with the local light rather than a precise technical fault.

The D3x doesn't display this variation, it is pretty much focused on almost every shot, stays in focus from image to image, and seems to be boringly oblivious of the quality of light - be it color or quantity, within reason. The image below is what you get (a small crop) with the D3x. You just find a decent subject, point it and press the shutter, it does the rest, no surprises.

Edmund

PS. I told my opinion of the 5DII to my friend Norman Koren who wrote Imatest, when he came to Paris with a borrowed 5DII in his bag. He predictably found this very funny. He found it rather less funny when he got home and viewed the images he was hoping to have brought back.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2011, 06:53:53 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

JdeV

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 120
    • http://www.jonathandevilliers.com
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #188 on: June 10, 2011, 03:15:42 am »

Having done a great deal of shooting with the D3x for the last two years I mostly agree with Edmund and Bernard. This has often been alongside MF (P65+ and Leaf AFi10) and has encompassed commercial fashion, travel and architecture photography (as well as a fair few snaps of my kids!). I have been interested to see reports on the 645D but will not be buying one because overall there is really no comparison with the D3x.

1) The dynamic range advantage over pretty much any other digital camera or back is very significant (I'm assuming this holds for the 645D). I have a lot of side by side architectural shots taken recently in Japan with the D3x and the Leaf AFi10 on an M-Line with best Schneider and Rodenstock lenses. Of course there is a resolution (and colour) advantage to the AFi10 but in actual use (magazine DPSs) these advantages are not always apparent while the dynamic range superiority of the D3x certainly is. I wanted to use all Leaf shots but ended up using quite a few Nikon ones because I could pull more out in difficult lighting conditions.

2) As an aside, the quality advantage over 12Mb images is noticeable and significant even in images below A3. Only above 800 or maybe 1000 ISO is there a potential quality gain to going with the 12Mb Nikon cameras.

3) As an additional aside, the 5dmkii has way inferior AF and dynamic range to the D3x. I tested them alongside each other thoroughly in January 2008 and it was enough to make me go through the painful and expensive process of switching over from Canon to Nikon (I had a 5d mk1 with many lenses and regularly rented the 1Ds mk11 and mk111). The D3x AF in low-light and tracking motion is remarkable, the 5Dmkii barely useable.

4) There are many nice extra things on the D3x for professional use including:
 i) Dual cards for back-up, which has saved my bacon when I had a duff (counterfeit) card and which I totally rely on on all my jobs. I work like I did with film: download 'Polaroids' to a laptop periodically but otherwise just shoot to 16Gb or 32Gb cards in slot 1, 64Gb back-up in slot 2. If I want to download as I go along, the assistant keeps swapping out the card in slot 1 and I make sure I have the entire shoot as back-up on slot 2. I have much greater trust in (genuine!) CF card reliability than I do in hard drives and I don't even bother making a hard drive back-up on set anymore.
ii) 5x4 format crop mode. Great for portraits. I much prefer framing close to my eventual format in camera. I only wish Nikon would make this infinitely variable by the user.
iii) Toughness and indestructability.
iv) The AF, as already mentioned.
etc. etc.

5) Regarding lenses, the difference between Nikon and MF Pentax (and even Canon in some key respects) is marked. The core professional Nikon zooms are really exceptional (24-70mm, 70-200mm). The 24-70mm in particular is very significantly better than the Canon and, in my opinion, on its own worth getting the D3x for over a Canon. There is nothing relevant in Pentax worth talking about. The Canon 70-200mm is also very good but the Nikon is slightly better. The 300mm F2.8 is terrific but I haven't tested it alongside the Canon. Unfortunately, many of the primes in the wide to normal range are slightly disappointing, particularly in relation to their cost. The problem is partly that the bar has been set so high by that 24-70mm. I recently bought the 35mm F1.4 but returned it because whilst it was sharper in the very far corners at F2.8, it was no sharper in the centre than the 24-70mm. At F4-F5.6 it was no better than the zoom. F1.4 was not really useable which left F2, where it was decent but not exceptional. I just couldn't really justify owning it at its very high cost. Similar story with the 24mm F1.4 and the 50mm F1.4 (I have the Sigma which is markedly superior to the Nikon at F1.4 and F2). I am not interested in the Zeiss lenses because I think AF is essential for sharp pictures unless you use live-view and if I'm using a shortish lens on a tripod it will be because I'm shooting buildings/landscape or in the studio, in which case I want a shift lens.
Annoyingly, the shift lenses are decent but perhaps not quite as good as the Canon equivalents (24mm and 45mm anyway, I haven't done a side by side comparison with the Canon 85mm). It's also irritating that you have to choose between tilt and swing and send the lens to Nikon to make the change. I will be interested to see the new Schneider PC lenses, particularly if they decide to make a wide.

6) I think the colour on the D3x is decent and certainly in no way inferior to the Canon, it's just different and has different flaws. However, the P65+ and to a lesser extent other digital backs really do win significantly here. At ISO 100 and below, the P65+ colour is just clearly, objectively superior. In normal conditions this is noticeable but in difficult mixed lighting situations it is very apparent. I hope Nikon work on this in the next generation body. Maybe the Pentax might win here.

7) Tethering is unreliable and slow. Nikon need to improve this. I mostly don't want to shoot tethered anyway so it hasn't been a decisive problem. Annoying when I need it though, particularly with still-life.

As has been noted, the D3x is a camera that you buy to just get on with your photography. It delivers to a very high standard, under almost any conditions, day in day out. The Pentax seems by all accounts to be decent but is of far more limited appeal.
Logged

nightfire

  • Guest
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #189 on: June 10, 2011, 04:35:45 am »

I've never seen a single camera loved and hated as much as the 5d2, in still and motion.
You've got to see the Leica M9, then ;)
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #190 on: June 10, 2011, 06:58:49 am »

D3x: Killed by exaggerated pricing. Or maybe that was the intention all along. I have never personally met anybody else who owned one.

Edmund


As has been noted, the D3x is a camera that you buy to just get on with your photography. It delivers to a very high standard, under almost any conditions, day in day out. The Pentax seems by all accounts to be decent but is of far more limited appeal.
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Thomas Babut

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
    • Photomek
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #191 on: June 10, 2011, 07:34:30 am »

D3x: Killed by exaggerated pricing. Or maybe that was the intention all along. I have never personally met anybody else who owned one.
Hence I've bought a Sony A850 recently. It has not the sophisticated AF as the D3X and lacks the live view function, but I don't need it. The A850 is about 4 times cheaper. Image quality should be pretty much the same. :)
Logged
Kind Regards,
Thomas

JdeV

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 120
    • http://www.jonathandevilliers.com
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #192 on: June 10, 2011, 09:00:45 am »

D3x: Killed by exaggerated pricing. Or maybe that was the intention all along. I have never personally met anybody else who owned one.

Edmund


Hi Edmund,
Yes you have. You've met me! You came along and kindly brought your D3x and P45+ when I was running large-format film versus digital tests in Paris a couple of years ago.
Cheers,
Jonathan
Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #193 on: June 10, 2011, 01:29:21 pm »

Or maybe that was the intention all along. I have never personally met anybody else who owned one.


I know a handful of people that moved to the Nikon, I would have if tethering was better, but really I just didn't see a need.

The Nikons do focus better than the canon and it's a good camera, even at the price.   The deal breaker is the 5d2 is a good camera at a ridiculous price.

Even now that the economy has picked up, I'm still in the "need to buy" mindset.  I'll buy a jib arm, HMIs or some LED lights way before I'll buy any camera that gives me 15% better quality, at least with stills where it's all washed away or added to in retouching.

Heck, we're even effecting and retouching motion images on desktops,  . . . even I-macs.

Everybody has their own  views and I can really understand buying equipment if it will rock my world, but I'm off the buy it cause it's new thing.

I've shown these before, but they we're all shot with a 5d2 and the top three with a small handheld led lightpanel, the bottom two with one HMI.

I didn't see any issues with the 5d2 in focus or noise or anything.   It just worked and that's all that mattered.

The images shot with the  LEDs  just break my head because to shoot with a light no larger than a flashlight and hand hold it just well, I can't even describe how crazy that thought would have been a few years ago.

Jeez, the garments the model is wearing cost more than the camera.



You can't see the detail from these little jpegs but there is not much more I'd want.

Actually this link is a little larger.

http://ishotit.com/PARIS_5D2.jpg


IMO

BC


« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 01:43:40 pm by bcooter »
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #194 on: June 10, 2011, 02:13:51 pm »

J,

 All you managed to prove with these creatively excellent pictures is that *you* could shoot fashion with an iphone, what you put in front of the lens trumps the camera.

 And actually, I myself am finding that what I do with the Iphone is increasingly better than what I do with the big cam, the problem is the enlargeability is not yet there. Actually, it might be there, but there is no way to get an uncompressed image off the phone. Also, permanent wideangle gets old fast.

 And you have confirmed that the deal-breaker on the Nikon is the price.

Edmund

I know a handful of people that moved to the Nikon, I would have if tethering was better, but really I just didn't see a need.

The Nikons do focus better than the canon and it's a good camera, even at the price.   The deal breaker is the 5d2 is a good camera at a ridiculous price.

Even now that the economy has picked up, I'm still in the "need to buy" mindset.  I'll buy a jib arm, HMIs or some LED lights way before I'll buy any camera that gives me 15% better quality, at least with stills where it's all washed away or added to in retouching.

Heck, we're even effecting and retouching motion images on desktops,  . . . even I-macs.

Everybody has their own  views and I can really understand buying equipment if it will rock my world, but I'm off the buy it cause it's new thing.

I've shown these before, but they we're all shot with a 5d2 and the top three with a small handheld led lightpanel, the bottom two with one HMI.

I didn't see any issues with the 5d2 in focus or noise or anything.   It just worked and that's all that mattered.

The images shot with the  LEDs  just break my head because to shoot with a light no larger than a flashlight and hand hold it just well, I can't even describe how crazy that thought would have been a few years ago.

Jeez, the garments the model is wearing cost more than the camera.



You can't see the detail from these little jpegs but there is not much more I'd want.

Actually this link is a little larger.

http://ishotit.com/PARIS_5D2.jpg


IMO

BC



« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 02:20:03 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #195 on: June 10, 2011, 03:04:48 pm »

the problem is the enlargeability is not yet there. Actually, it might be there, but there is no way to get an uncompressed image off the phone.


Edmund,

I have no dog in this fight so I'm not trying to prove anything.

Everybody should use what's right for them.

I've just noticed in the last few years, nobody talks about still cameras . . . at least in my world.

You know it's funny . . . I try and usually do shoot every image in one piece.  In other words I don't add a lot of background plates, or different exposures to make up for lack of dr or any problem with the camera.

If it is a problem, with stills, adding a sky a little darker (or lighter), or pulling out a separate exposure for shadow smoothness is just a no brainer.  We can combine something like that in less time than it takes to put the cameras back in the cases.

The images I showed obviously have retouching, hell everything has retouching that goes into publication .  . . everything including a lot of real journalism that's not suppose to have any changes and I'm not advocating turning the world into a drawing, but photoshop has changed how all of us work and what I worry about.

Since we now shoot a lot of motion on each project, or the project is even motion based we try to keep the set as clean as possible, without going into the thought of don't worry we'll fix it later.  Fixing motion images later is a lot of work.

Anyway, I just wanted to show that this (and many more images) was an editorial we squeezed into a movie we're working on and we shot about 15 set ups in 10 hours.  Day, night, rain with a 800 watt hmi, or with a small handheld light panel all I really cared about was the result.

These stills ran in an Asian Magazine that prints very high quality.  No problems, no issues.  The previous project we shot for this publisher we used mostly a p21+ and a P30+ (of course with a lot more light quantity) and once again no problems, no issues.

I guess if anything, in the world of images for money, the very FIRST thing the client looks at did we get the shot, the look, the emotion (or lack of emotion depending on the creative brief) and nobody ever talks to me about image quality, unless they just don't like the photograph.

But what do I worry about.  Usually it's just capturing the moment I and the clients want to see and nowdays getting the same look in still and video.

That's what matters, not the camera, 2% more dr.  35% more or less pixel count.

Right now we're in a whirlwind of change.  Could Pandora become the world's radio station, will every magazine in the world be on an ipad and will it have Justin Bieber moving or standing still or both?  Will we have real time wireless where you shoot it, effect it, cut it and deliver from a laptop device and above all once this all fleshes out, will content and creativity become more important than the process?

The last one I want to believe it, the rest I have no control over, so it's none of my business.

What is my business is if a client wants footage that can be changed, cropped or effected to tell the "story" and in advertising, journalism and entertainment the creative story wins. . . it wins everytime.

So as I look at my balance sheet of things I need to spend on, schedules that must be met, new business that should be acquired, the camera is way down on the list.

It's important but not as important as I used to think it is.

Thanks.

BC

P.S.  To tell you how the world has changed, yesterday a client went through the dailies web galleries from a still/motion project.  The main still images were selected and retouched weeks ago, but they want more, (everybody wants more) so they went through the dailies from the RED and pulled out 16 screen shots they'd like to put into still images.  We processed them out at 16 bits, did our color and clean up, shipped them to the retoucher and on Monday or Tuesday they will be ready for print.

Are they as technically good as a d3x, or even a 5d2 . . . ummmm maybe not, but they're pretty damn close and since they embody the real non staged look the client wants to see, they will work and work so well, we've acquired more projects from this client.

But no, I can't shoot with an Iphone, or would rather not, but I can shoot with a whole bunch of cameras that do a lot of different things.

The world is changing and changing damn fast.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #196 on: June 10, 2011, 04:19:55 pm »

Edmund,

The world is changing and changing damn fast.


J,

 Remember how when the iphone came out some guy stuck one on a toy train and shot a short film, edited on the phone to make the point even more forcefully?



The movie is here.

My friend Andreas went the other way, and shot a stop motion short with his Hasselblad H3D60

You are right, photography is changing fast and one of the changes is that *any* image quality is now acceptable for the right high-budget client.


Edmund
« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 04:24:00 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #197 on: June 10, 2011, 05:30:23 pm »

Image quality has never been what makes a quality image IMO.

Not to be a Cooter addict, although I'm quite addict to his imagery and learn a lot from him, I must admit that almost each time he writes something in this forum,
it matches with my experience at one point or another. Even, I sometimes was in disagreement to end later, with more working experiences, realised that his comments where
right-on-the-money (I think you use that in english).

Again here, I see exactly the same. Over and over again.

I'm thankfull to have those artists and professionals here. Probably the photographers who
have a strong influence in teaching me all the time are James Russell and Mark Tucker wich blog I follow, but I also think
about Chris Barrett, James Haefner, Schewe, Keith Laban and I forgot many more.
Each time one of these forum members write something, I generally read twice or more because I know that the content will be worth.
I may disagree, but I always try to forget about my view, take distance and think what does he trying to say here because there is
an enormous amont of talent and professional experience behind their words.

And I think Cooter in those latest posts is saying again a lot of truth.

Listen who wants to listen of course.

But let me tell you this: In my assistance experience, I have never -not just one time- had a conversation about DR,
magic IQ, brands comparaisons, etc...and it's been quite a while since I haven't heard about still cameras too.
And the less who talk about gear are the ones actually who use them most: my boss, the photographers or cineasts.

The only time I heard pros talking about IQ is for vintage stuff. Constantly talking about the story, the goal, the models, the cast, the artistic goal, the numbers etc...
very very rarely if never, talking about image quality and specially cameras's because the pp is probably the most important.

Those are just tools, not a goal in itself. The problem is that when the goal is not defined enough, when talent is not matured enough, the tool becomes the center
of the preocupation and reaching ultimate IQ the motivation.

Artist generally tend to move a lot their location, or their work direction for a good reason IMO.

Last week I had to do (they told me to do) 4 cmyk at 150dpi 5mx4m enlargements and the pic was a Canon.
It could have been a P65++++ or a Red, whatever. But it would not have been an I.phone either.

(now actually 4K and 5K are the words I hear most)
« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 06:10:42 pm by fredjeang »
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #198 on: June 10, 2011, 05:43:37 pm »

We've been having these running threads for years now, starting on RG.

90% of SLR photo equipment is now sold to amateurs, how many of these are going to buy 4K video?

Edmund



Image quality has never been what makes a quality image IMO.

Not to be a Cooter addict, although I'm quite addict to his imagery and learn a lot from him, I must admit that almost each time he writes something in this forum,
it matches with my experience at one point or another. Even, I sometimes was in disagreement to end later, with more working experiences, realised that his comments where
right-on-the-money (I think you use that in english).

Again here, I see exactly the same. Over and over again.

I'm thankfull to have those artists and professionals here. Probably the photographers who
have a strong influence in teaching me all the time are James Russell and Mark Tucker wich blog I follow, but I also think
about Chris Barrett, James Haefner, Schewe, Keith Laban and I forgot many more.
Each time one of these forum members write something, I generally read twice or more because I know that the content will be worth.
I may disagree, but I always try to forget about my view, take distance and think what does he trying to say here because there is
an enormous amont of talent and professional experience behind their words.

And I think Cooter in those latest posts is saying again a lot of truth.

Listen who wants to listen of course.

But let me tell you this: In my assistance experience, I have never -not just one time- had a conversation about DR,
magic IQ, brands comparaisons, etc...and it's been quite a while since I haven't heard about still cameras too.
And the less who talk about gear are the ones actually who use them most: my boss, the photographers or cineasts.

The only time I heard pros talking about IQ is for vintage stuff. Constantly talking about the story, the goal, the models, the cast etc...

Last week I had to do (they told me to do) 4 cmyk at 150dpi 5mx4m enlargements and the pic was a Canon.
It could have been a P65++++ or a Red, whatever. But it would not have been an I.phone either.

(now actually 4K and 5K are the words I hear most)
« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 05:54:56 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: 645D vs D3x
« Reply #199 on: June 10, 2011, 05:45:50 pm »

We've been having these running threads for years now, starting on RG.
I've given up on selling my work, I do it strictly for fun. And this raises an interesting question:
90% of SLR photo equipment is now sold to amateurs, how many of these are going to buy 4K video?

Edmund



mmm...I'm almost sure that Canon will do a 4K bomb at 3000 bucks soon or later.

edit: or Panasonic, I forgot.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 05:53:01 pm by fredjeang »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 13   Go Up