Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: More pixels? larger sensor (MF)? ... .CANON??!!  (Read 15190 times)

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520

The files from the C are "fatter", more predictable, and better editable than those from the N I own.
Based on my experience, I don't see why brand N is doing better than brand C. I'd say they are pretty well matched and both firms have had their share of both stars and dogs - and in fact I'd call the 5DII a Sirius camera because it is a bit of both :)

I'm sure you can show me some numbers from some french firm that will demonstrate conclusively that I don't know what I'm talking about - but I have always been very bad at accepting the applicability of platonic ideals to everyday reality, especially when mediated by gallic high priests :)

Edmund


Agree.   I find Nikon color  . . . global at least when the subject is breathing, but you can make any file work.

The 1ds3 is a much better camera in file and use than my 1dx, expect focus.

I bought the 1dx because . . .  actually I'm not sure why I bought the 1dx.  Oh yea I remember because it shoots video, though I never use Canon for video so I guess that's a wash.

The 5d2 makes a nice file, not a great camera, but a good file, the 5d3 I've tested and used on a project bored me. Its way too smooth, way too global in color.

I also find Canon lenses L or otherwise to be prettier than the new nikons.  

But Edmund is dead on about DPP.  It's like having a new camera.  C-1 is ok, Iridient Developer is very good if you take the time, lightroom no.

If Canon comes out with something whiz bang I might look, but I also might take a positive step back and buy two 1ds3's.

I called today to try to find an A7 to test, (mostly focus) but they are few and far between.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 12:51:55 am by bcooter »
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram

But Edmund is dead on about DPP.  It's like having a new camera.  C-1 is ok, Iridient Developer is very good if you take the time, lightroom no.

If Canon comes out with something whiz bang I might look, but I also might take a positive step back and buy two 1ds3's.

I called today to try to find an A7 to test, (mostly focus) but they are few and far between.

IMO

BC


I traded my 5D2 for a junkyard 1Ds3 because I wanted something that could focus, and surprise! the files are solid. In particular, the cheekbone burnout effect which annoyed me on the 1ds2 in my model-shooting days is now well controlled.

Nobody seems to want these tanks of a camera, so I think there is going to be a huge supply of them floating around. I think the shutters are rated forever. Maybe you  too can trade for your 5D2's if you really don't want them for video.

There is one issue with using this aging camera btw, apparently some newer  Canon chargers supplied with the 1Ds3 have issues with clone batteries, so if you get clones get them in a pack with a charger -or bite the bullet on Canon batteries.

DPP pulls a lot more detail and "shape" out of the file than anything else - I knew that but was still surprised again at the extent of the change - the files come to life. I really don't know if this is due to Canon having measured their AA filter and computed an exact inverse, or whether they are using some trickery.

Edmund





« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 01:38:11 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520


I traded my 5D2 for a junkyard 1Ds3 because I wanted something that could focus, and surprise! the files are solid. In particular, the cheekbone burnout effect which annoyed me on the 1ds2 in my model-shooting days is now well controlled.

Nobody seems to want these tanks of a camera, so I think there is going to be a huge supply of them floating around. I think the shutters are rated forever. Maybe you  too can trade for your 5D2's if you really don't want them for video.

There is one issue with using this aging camera btw, apparently some newer  Canon chargers supplied with the 1Ds3 have issues with clone batteries, so if you get clones get them in a pack with a charger -or bite the bullet on Canon batteries.

DPP pulls a lot more detail and "shape" out of the file than anything else - I knew that but was still surprised again at the extent of the change - the files come to life. I really don't know if this is due to Canon having measured their AA filter and computed an exact inverse, or whether they are using some trickery.

Edmund


I don't think these large cameras will go away for professional production, they're just too sturdy and too well accepted.  I see a lot of Canons on set, less Nikons, some medium format, which is always an H body.

I think DPP works because Canon doesn't give out all the info of their file, or if they do Adobe or others don't use it.  I've always been told that Adobe does backward compatible for their raw processing, but I think Adobe just like's orange skintones.

One thing the 1dx does well is tether with DPP though ethernet.  We did a gig this year and shot over 9,000 frames and not one freeze on the computer, not one drop, not one issue.  Never have I tethered for 4 days and not had at least one crash a day so the ethernet tethering is wicked and I love dpp to tether.  I run bridge in the background to check focus and to sort as we go on the fly and any powerbook will run it.

1ds2's and 3's do blow out their shutters.  Blew one on every 2 and 3 I owned and 1 shutter on the 1ds1.  That's 5 shutters, but Canon fixes them fast and cheap.

I rarely sell cameras, could kick myself for selling both of my 3's, but I might buy two more and just keep working.  

I know I won't buy another 5d2.  I bought it for video and never shot more than 10 minutes with it, but for stills it's ok, not great, but ok.

For the Non pixel peeping crowd the Canon is still the favorite at least from what I see in the studios and cities I work and I would be surprised if more Nikons are used for professional work than Canons and no I don't have a dog in this hunt as I own cameras from almost every brand.

Having worked REDs, Nikons, Olympus, Leica, Phase, Leaf, Pansonic, only Canon and Panasonic have a logical control and menu system.  The rest always make me stop and think, uh, oh yea, there's the zoom to focus button, or something like that.

This forum use to have less fanboys, but now it seems like people are talking politics or religion when they mention cameras.  I'd buy anything if it works better for me . . . anything, any brand.  

If I had more faith in sony and knew how well the A7 focused and tethered I might buy one, but I dunno, Sony always worries me.

IMO

BC

It's funny though, most of us talk cameras and raw processing like it's a holy grail, but 90% of all retouchers, want a guide file for color, but usually toss it, drop the raw in photoshop, process and go to work.

I'd bet 90% of every professional image is processed in photoshop's raw convertor.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 02:39:09 am by bcooter »
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram

J,

I blew 2 1ds series shutters.

Adobe have the best workflow in the business, bar none, but the files are somehow not really up to the polished quality of the rest of Lightroom.

Edmund

I don't think these large cameras will go away for professional production, they're just too sturdy and too well accepted.  I see a lot of Canons on set, less Nikons, some medium format, which is always an H body.

I think DPP works because Canon doesn't give out all the info of their file, or if they do Adobe or others don't use it.  I've always been told that Adobe does backward compatible for their raw processing, but I think Adobe just like's orange skintones.

One thing the 1dx does well is tether with DPP though ethernet.  We did a gig this year and shot over 9,000 frames and not one freeze on the computer, not one drop, not one issue.  Never have I tethered for 4 days and not had at least one crash a day so the ethernet tethering is wicked and I love dpp to tether.  I run bridge in the background to check focus and to sort as we go on the fly and any powerbook will run it.

1ds2's and 3's do blow out their shutters.  Blew one on every 2 and 3 I owned and 1 shutter on the 1ds1.  That's 5 shutters, but Canon fixes them fast and cheap.

I rarely sell cameras, could kick myself for selling both of my 3's, but I might buy two more and just keep working.  

I know I won't buy another 5d2.  I bought it for video and never shot more than 10 minutes with it, but for stills it's ok, not great, but ok.

For the Non pixel peeping crowd the Canon is still the favorite at least from what I see in the studios and cities I work and I would be surprised if more Nikons are used for professional work than Canons and no I don't have a dog in this hunt as I own cameras from almost every brand.

Having worked REDs, Nikons, Olympus, Leica, Phase, Leaf, Pansonic, only Canon and Panasonic have a logical control and menu system.  The rest always make me stop and think, uh, oh yea, there's the zoom to focus button, or something like that.

This forum use to have less fanboys, but now it seems like people are talking politics or religion when they mention cameras.  I'd buy anything if it works better for me . . . anything, any brand.  

If I had more faith in sony and knew how well the A7 focused and tethered I might buy one, but I dunno, Sony always worries me.

IMO

BC

It's funny though, most of us talk cameras and raw processing like it's a holy grail, but 90% of all retouchers, want a guide file for color, but usually toss it, drop the raw in photoshop, process and go to work.

I'd bet 90% of every professional image is processed in photoshop's raw convertor.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 03:15:19 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
Re: More pixels? larger sensor (MF)? ... .CANON??!!
« Reply #64 on: December 04, 2013, 03:34:22 am »

It's strange how some cameras just fit some situations.

A few years ago got booked for a gig in Brazil and Mexico for a campaign and coffee table book.

I wanted to work faster than my 1ds2 (which Canon slowed up after some issues) and bought a 1d (not S) 3 for the high iso and speed of shooting.



I just zoned on this camera for this gig and when I got back to LA sold it in two days, before I even looked at the files.

I was kinda worried that the files would be too small for the book, but rezzed them up never said word and the publisher loved them so life went on.

Now I look back and wish I'd had kept that damn thing even with the small file and the APS H sensor which for some reason I like that strange crop.

It's funny I liked it so much I rented it (and I rarely rent anything) so many times I could have bought it.



Loved this man in Brazil.  He told me his dream was to live in Brooklyn.  Very cool.

IM0

BC
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 03:49:42 am by bcooter »
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: More pixels? larger sensor (MF)? ... .CANON??!!
« Reply #65 on: December 04, 2013, 09:36:57 am »

Huge drop in profit and a fall in camera sales at Nikon. Maybe the market leader Canon should buy the small player Nikon and assimilate the technology?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/nikon-earnings-idUSL3N0IR39F20131107

here I must pivot to to a partial defense of Nikon's DSLRs. Those poor results do not seem to be anything to do with slipping in its competition with Canon (or Sony). Instead they come from:
1. poor DSLR sales industry-wide; at Canon too.
2. particularly poor sales of the Nikon One system; breaking that out, [Nikon's] DSLR's seem to be about holding level, a decent results compared to the DSLR market as a whole
3. compact camera sales, which dropped far more than interchangeable lens camera sales.
4. continuing decline in Nikon's sales of steppers and such, where ASML continues to increase its huge market share lead at the expense of every competitor.

Thom Hogan does a good job of reporting and analyzing some camera makers' financial reports (but maybe only Nikon and the main mirrorless makers)
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-financials-posted.html
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 12:02:02 pm by BJL »
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: More pixels? larger sensor (MF)? ... .CANON??!!
« Reply #66 on: December 04, 2013, 10:57:10 am »

The photo market may see more consolidation - I'm sure that quite a few people have noticed  that Nikon has an established brand, and is good at making lenses while Sony is good at making video cameras, sensors and mirrorless bodies, but has an uphill struggle in the photo retail business :)


Edmund

here I must pivot to to a partial defense of Nikon's DSLRs. Those poor results do not seem to be anything to do with slipping in its competition with Canon (or Sony). Instead they come from:
1. poor DSLR sales industry-wide; at Canon too.
2. particularly poor sales of the Nikon One system; breaking that out, DSLR's seem to be about holding level, a decent results compared to the DSLR market as a whole
3. compact camera sales, which dropped far more than interchangeable lens camera sales.
4. continuing decline in Nikon's sales of steppers and such, where ASML continues to increase its huge maker share lead at the expense of every competitor.

Thom Hogan does a good job of reporting and analyzing some camera makers' financial reports (but maybe only Nikon and the main mirrorless makers)
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-financials-posted.html

« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 11:03:24 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Fine_Art

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1172
Re: More pixels? larger sensor (MF)? ... .CANON??!!
« Reply #67 on: December 04, 2013, 04:51:25 pm »

The photo market may see more consolidation - I'm sure that quite a few people have noticed  that Nikon has an established brand, and is good at making lenses while Sony is good at making video cameras, sensors and mirrorless bodies, but has an uphill struggle in the photo retail business :)


Edmund


The problem for Sony in photography retail is they have this idea that they are a premium brand with consumers. They think they can charge premium prices for their brand recognition. When you get the Sony A99 at 50% more than the D600 while having lower performance in ISO, DR, color, AF, 12 bit vs 14 bit, you see a big disconnect from reality. It's the same on the pricing of their best lenses. To me that was time to move on.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: More pixels? larger sensor (MF)? ... .CANON??!!
« Reply #68 on: December 04, 2013, 05:16:36 pm »

The photo market may see more consolidation - I'm sure that quite a few people have noticed  that Nikon has an established brand, and is good at making lenses while Sony is good at making video cameras, sensors and mirrorless bodies, but has an uphill struggle in the photo retail business :)

Considering that the business model of camera companies is to propose mostly closed systems where a significant part of the recurrent revenue is resulting from lenses purchases, how would you suggest that Nikon and Sony manage the 5 or 6 lenses line up they both offer with 3 or 4 different mounts?

On top of that, Sony's sensors are manufactured by a different legal entity from their camera division. Nikon is their largest DSLR sized imaging sensor customer by far (to the extend that it can be said Nikon funded a significant part of the Exmor technology developement) but imaging is just a small part of their business. At least nikon was, because they have recently shifted a very significant volume of APS-C sensors to Toshiba without impact on image quality.

But, let's face it, the A7r is mostly appealing for Canon shooters who have been waiting for years for a decent sensor to put their lenses on. For other photographers, there is a lot of overlap between the capabilities of the a7r and that of the D800E. I am personally not experimenting focus issues on my D800 and keep getting very sharp images of the eyes of my young daughter at f1.4 using the 85mm f1.4 AF-S, that is in natural light shooting situations, not just in still standing studio images. I believe that the only other cameras on the market in the same ball park from a focus performance standpoint are the Canon 5DIII, 1DX and D4. The a7r would be a regression here. She is not my daughter, but this was also shot at 1.4 on the 85mm.



So, to my eyes, the only case where the A7r would provide significant value in terms of photographic outcome is when third party manual focus lenses are used on the bodies, and that is probably not a scenario that Sonykon would base a business case on. The compactness argument is mostly moot once you put a fast prime or a zoom lens on the camera. So the a7R and D800E end up being similar form factor devices with different strenghts and weaknesses (EVF vs OVF mostly).

We'll see, but I consider the chance of Sony and Nikon merging their operations to be lower than that of Canon releasing a MF system.  ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 05:34:36 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Phil Indeblanc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2017
Re: More pixels? larger sensor (MF)? ... .CANON??!!
« Reply #69 on: December 04, 2013, 08:20:31 pm »

Those 2 are great images, the first has great depth and its beautiful. I really like the color you toned on that.



Quote
Having worked REDs, Nikons, Olympus, Leica, Phase, Leaf, Pansonic, only Canon and Panasonic have a logical control and menu system.  The rest always make me stop and think, uh, oh yea, there's the zoom to focus button, or something like that.
This forum use to have less fanboys, but now it seems like people are talking politics or religion when they mention cameras.  I'd buy anything if it works better for me . . . anything, any brand.  

I agree, and sure, maybe MF might take a long time before they even think of larger sensors, But imagine Oly jumping into Full Frame! They have GREAT focus/lenses, and solid cameras. I would surely consider a well built Oly with meaty files. I too have ZERO brand loyalty...What ever that means.


[quoteIt's funny though, most of us talk cameras and raw processing like it's a holy grail, but 90% of all retouchers, want a guide file for color, but usually toss it, drop the raw in photoshop, process and go to work.
I'd bet 90% of every professional image is processed in photoshop's raw convertor.[/quote]

When working from the RAW file, it really depends on the system photographed in. I would always try C1 as a default, but if its a lot of files and not a MF, I don't hesitate to drop them in LR. I rarely get guide files. Art Directors want a certain look, cold warm etc. But Lots of colors get shifted in PS anyway.

I will surely revisit DPP as I too remember good things. I just don't remember how much better it was. Likely worth it!
Both my 1ds-I blew shutters. Canon replaced them for a low price, on one of them they replaced the SENSOR! No charge or explanation! I asked and they said they noticed something needing replacement???!!
I loved the files out of that 1Ds, sort of regret getting rid of the last one.  These cameras TANK build is really a for Outdoor jouralists, and nature shooters on the run, and they are just super solid tools. I see that build quality a need in the fields and different environments they are used in. If I were in the middle east covering news in sandy storms or the jungles of moist cloud forests in South America, I would want a 1Ds series. ( What I had , but for personal work :-)

On another note, I agree with Edmund on the files holding up before "breaking". That is what I tried to explain in the bigning of the thread....
Quote
Hi Erik,
I push my files around a lot in PS -  sometimes the image gets really unnatural if you do too much editing, then I say it "breaks". The Phase files in my experience were like rubber - they could be stretched (curves, color adjustments) and they would never break. I believe it's something to do with the DR and the orthogonality of the CFAs, both of which are very good in backs.

Edmund
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 08:28:46 pm by Phil Indeblanc »
Logged
If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2639
    • Rolleiflex USA
Re: More pixels? larger sensor (MF)? ... .CANON??!!
« Reply #70 on: December 06, 2013, 08:06:16 pm »

"But, let's face it, the A7r is mostly appealing for Canon shooters who have been waiting for years for a decent sensor to put their lenses on."

Bernard,
I'm not sure that's a fair dig. People were happy with the 1DS, and the 5d2 seems to be getting enough work done that lots of people don't see a reason to upgrade.  Better reasons to like the A7R are its smaller size and lower cost. The d800 is a lot heavier and bulkier than a lot of amateur photographers would like. Trend is smaller not necessarily better.  Canikon has to compete with cell phones not MF.   

Off topic a bit, I sold a new Rolleiflex TLR to a guy today who said he wanted to buy a 'real' camera.  Not sure if he was thinking 'real' meant film or 'real' meant a camera where the photographer made all the decisions, or maybe a camera that would last more than just three years before it needed an upgrade?   
Logged
Rolleiflex USA

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: More pixels? larger sensor (MF)? ... .CANON??!!
« Reply #71 on: December 06, 2013, 08:57:45 pm »

"But, let's face it, the A7r is mostly appealing for Canon shooters who have been waiting for years for a decent sensor to put their lenses on."

Bernard,
I'm not sure that's a fair dig. People were happy with the 1DS, and the 5d2 seems to be getting enough work done that lots of people don't see a reason to upgrade.  Better reasons to like the A7R are its smaller size and lower cost. The d800 is a lot heavier and bulkier than a lot of amateur photographers would like. Trend is smaller not necessarily better.  Canikon has to compete with cell phones not MF.   

I never said that all Canon users were attracted by the a7r, nor that great work could not be achieved with the current Canon cameras.

I just said that the a7r is very appealing for those Canon shooters looking for a way to use their excellent lenses on a last generation sensor.

All the Canon shooters I personnally know well (ok, that is only 2 guys) have already bought a Sony a7r. They did it out of frustration with Canon sensor technology. I don't think they are the only 2 in the world.

Cheers,
Bernard

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: More pixels? larger sensor (MF)? ... .CANON??!!
« Reply #72 on: December 06, 2013, 10:22:15 pm »

Bernard,

 I think you're right - Canon is probably racing to release a better sensor.
 Having both the D800 and the A7R out there is too much competition.

Edmund

I never said that all Canon users were attracted by the a7r, nor that great work could not be achieved with the current Canon cameras.

I just said that the a7r is very appealing for those Canon shooters looking for a way to use their excellent lenses on a last generation sensor.

All the Canon shooters I personnally know well (ok, that is only 2 guys) have already bought a Sony a7r. They did it out of frustration with Canon sensor technology. I don't think they are the only 2 in the world.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Phil Indeblanc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2017
Re: More pixels? larger sensor (MF)? ... .CANON??!!
« Reply #73 on: December 07, 2013, 12:26:20 am »

Its also the fact that while the 1Dstudio was designed to also work in the studio, it really isn't a option for detail work. So the MF sharpness/No AA, and workflow was the only option other than a couple others (Sigma-Foveon) but at lower resolutions. With d800E and the A7R that area is now also competing with MF while Canon is not.
Logged
If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2639
    • Rolleiflex USA
Re: More pixels? larger sensor (MF)? ... .CANON??!!
« Reply #74 on: December 07, 2013, 03:32:36 am »

With d800E and the A7R that area is now also competing with MF while Canon is not.

You think so? I don't, but I would not be surprised if in one or two years you are saying that Nikon is now needing to play catch up.  It's been back and forth for a long while.  I'm don't get ruffled by that game.  

None of the DSLRs are touching MF in look, or important features in my opinion.  When one of those companies comes out with a big view 45 degree prism, something other than the 3::2 crop, leaf shutters (or no shutter) and decently fast sync speed, I'll get interested in having another look.  

Personally, I know as many people getting back into or trying film or Alternate process than I do people buying the A7R or D800.  All the little digital cameras have the same flat look - IMHO. People want a way to differentiate themselves besides lowering their prices.    And MF and LF film cameras are quite inexpensive now on the second hand market.  

And when I look at new digital  stuff, I'm much more interested in the Black Magic pocket cinema camera and the Sigma DP2M than I am in the A7R or the D800.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 03:35:33 am by EricWHiss »
Logged
Rolleiflex USA

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: More pixels? larger sensor (MF)? ... .CANON??!!
« Reply #75 on: December 07, 2013, 04:35:34 am »

Hi,

Just to remind you, some of us are taking pictures, and that is something we can do with any camera at hand. Some may be better than others but most are good enough. I am pretty sure most of the best images are shot on Canons, even if they lack DR and MP. Another point may be that on all my trips trough Yellowstone and Grand Teton national park I have seen only one MF camera and that was Noblex panoramic camera.

Personally, I have both MFD, full frame 135 and APS-C, and actually use all of them. I never go for a walk with the Hasselblad alone. A DSLR and two lenses (24-70/2.8 and 70-400/4-5.6) always come along. On longer walks, it is the DSLR that comes along and the MFD stays in the trunk. The APS-C I use as a walkaround camera and for long telephoto. The APS-C has the smallest pixels which is longest reach in telephoto work. Any of those cameras make excellent A2-size prints, which hapens to be my standard print size.

I don't need fast sync speeds as I never use flash outside, but can see it is useful for many applications.

There are features that MFD lacks, like electronic viewfinder and electronic first shutter. Personally I use live view focusing at 11X all the time. That is the one feature I miss on the Hasselblad V/P45+.

The Rollei is of course a far more advanced camera than my classical Hasselblad, which I mostly have chosen because of the cheaply available Zeiss lenses.

Best regards
Erik

You think so? I don't, but I would not be surprised if in one or two years you are saying that Nikon is now needing to play catch up.  It's been back and forth for a long while.  I'm don't get ruffled by that game.  

None of the DSLRs are touching MF in look, or important features in my opinion.  When one of those companies comes out with a big view 45 degree prism, something other than the 3::2 crop, leaf shutters (or no shutter) and decently fast sync speed, I'll get interested in having another look.  

Personally, I know as many people getting back into or trying film or Alternate process than I do people buying the A7R or D800.  All the little digital cameras have the same flat look - IMHO. People want a way to differentiate themselves besides lowering their prices.    And MF and LF film cameras are quite inexpensive now on the second hand market.  

And when I look at new digital  stuff, I'm much more interested in the Black Magic pocket cinema camera and the Sigma DP2M than I am in the A7R or the D800.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 04:41:02 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
Re: More pixels? larger sensor (MF)? ... .CANON??!!
« Reply #76 on: December 07, 2013, 04:47:37 am »


Personally, I know as many people getting back into or trying film or Alternate process than I do people buying the A7R or D800.  All the little digital cameras have the same flat look - IMHO. People want a way to differentiate themselves besides lowering their prices.    And MF and LF film cameras are quite inexpensive now on the second hand market.  

And when I look at new digital  stuff, I'm much more interested in the Black Magic pocket cinema camera and the Sigma DP2M than I am in the A7R or the D800.

Of the photographers I know that use film, few do it for commerce, most for personal work, some for editorial.  Yes at times it's a different look, though I find a lot of that debatable because most people work an image in post regardless of the capture and film covers a lot of territory. 

To me most of the interesting films are gone like Agfa and the fuji films like provia look just like contrasty digital to me.

Personally I think my old Phase backs produce more of a different look than most films, but that's all personal opinion and that takes a roll your own look in post.

I do know I could sell all of my Canons and Nikons and not blink.  I wouldn't sell the Canon glass because I use it for some of the REDs and well you can't buy glass back at the price you sell.  I also wouldn't sell any of my old Nikon F lenses, but the new ones bore me.   

When it comes to digital cameras,  every second that passes  a digital camera drops in price.

I doubt seriously if I'd ever sell my contax phase(s) but they are the cameras I use the least.  (go figure).

BC
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: More pixels? larger sensor (MF)? ... .CANON??!!
« Reply #77 on: December 07, 2013, 05:16:36 am »

And when I look at new digital  stuff, I'm much more interested in the Black Magic pocket cinema camera and the Sigma DP2M than I am in the A7R or the D800.

I love my DP2m, there is something special to the files that is so very right.

I really wish they released a full frame equivalent. Considering the likely progress over 2-3 years since the SD1 was released, it would probably only be second to the IQ280 at base ISO in terms of image quality.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 05:59:52 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: More pixels? larger sensor (MF)? ... .CANON??!!
« Reply #78 on: December 07, 2013, 07:52:57 am »

J,

Whatever one says, there is really a difference in looks between digital cameras. Now this doesn't of course matter to professionals who just throw a file at a retoucher but getting caught with the wrong tool for a situation  is a real nuisance for a standalone practitioner or an amateur.

Let me give an example: Some cameras just produce superb BW prints with desaturate and a slight curves adjustment - you just need a decent calibrated monitor to see what you're doing - and some need very heavy work to get a file to print crisply in monochrome. If you are a pro it doesn't matter, a retoucher will do the work while you go to the disco drink champagne with the model and her friends, but if you're an amateur you will prefer to hit "print" and get your 4 or 5 8x10 "proof of camera use for wife" images and go bowling, rather than spend the night on it.

People like you get paid for creating a look, rather than turning up on time, and so you'll end up with a box of different tools for different looks - this explains why you end up with so many of them - my feeling is you are so proud of your retouch pipeline and ability to fix what's broken that you are now denying the obvious.

Edmund

PS I am still amused by the fact that you sold your original 1Ds - if ever there was a dSLR with an interesting look that was it.:)


Personally I think my old Phase backs produce more of a different look than most films, but that's all personal opinion and that takes a roll your own look in post.

I do know I could sell all of my Canons and Nikons and not blink.  I wouldn't sell the Canon glass because I use it for some of the REDs and well you can't buy glass back at the price you sell.  I also wouldn't sell any of my old Nikon F lenses, but the new ones bore me.  

I doubt seriously if I'd ever sell my contax phase(s) but they are the cameras I use the least.  (go figure).

BC

« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 09:36:08 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up