Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BJBauer on December 16, 2014, 10:23:38 pm
-
I was once an avid follower of this site but have been in the 3rd world for several years and dropped out. Michael was once an avid Canon user. From what I gather not so much now. Why? Has the brand fallen that far behind?
dr b
-
I a word - yes.
Actually it isn't the Canon has fallen behind as much as it is that everyone else has moved foreword. There have been huge strides in sensor technology these past few years, but not by Canon. The compact (mirrorless) segment is steamrolling ahead and embracing an ever increasing share of the market, while DSLR's are shrinking (in marketshare, not physical size).
Canon choose a few years ago to focus on the video aspect of their camera, and to introduce a number of DSLR-like dedicated cameras. Now, a few years later everyone else has caught up, and the C series cameras are pretty much overpriced, underfeatured and forgotten.
Canon will rise again, to be sure. But they do strike me as being a bit like General Motors was a decade ago; still a market leader, but fat, complacent and unresponsive to their customer's changing needs. And we all know what happened to GM.
Michael
-
To be fair though Canon still has an excellent range of cameras. I have moved heavily into mirror-less in recent years, first with Panasonic and now with Olympus. They are great small cameras, and I think Canon will need to offer a mirror-less camera soon - I would have loved one like the 5D where I could shoot video through the viewfinder. But for stills they have some great cameras.
Jim
-
Yes Canon does, but none of them have the same range of DR at base iso to mid range iso that the Sony chips have, it's very simple to test. I really don't care about iso 12000 and up as Canon may be better, but it's still not very useable without a ton of work.
There were two reviews that caught my eye when the Nikon 800 first came out, Michael's review with the bookcase shot and the Fred Miranda review with the awning where Fred showed how much detail there was in the Nikon file in the shadows.
That was what I wanted, I don't need 10fps, or great iso 51K, just a good single image taken in the iso 64 to 200 range, as that pretty much covers my needs. Take any Canon (the 6D is an exception) and expose it in a shot where you have bright light and deep shadows, expose for the highlight, and try to pull up your shadows, you will see the red blue banding that Canon has had since the 1ds MKIII. You need multiple exposures to get there with a Canon. NOTE, the 6D is much better here as the noise will not have the banding, but instead looks like film grain. But there is still noise.
Everyone looks for what they need, I saw it in Nikon and made the switch. Canon has something coming, who knows when, and what. Multiple layer chips like Foveon have not shown good results much past base iso, so if that's it then it's still a limited camera. If it's standard CMOS, I can't see it being much better than what Sony and Nikon already have in DR. The reality of more DR is becoming smaller and smaller tweaks from what I have seen.
Life is short, and I didn't like selling a bunch of gear that I had used successfully for 14 years or more, but I have had great results since early 2012 with Nikon and only miss the Canon TS-E 17 and 24 as Nikon can't begin to reach the quality of these lenses with their lineup.
And the world to me looks much better in full frame instead of 1.6 cropped, so even though the 7D MKII is a good improvement, it's focal range is very limiting for landscape work (at least what I shoot). And many still seem to forget that the D800 family have a great 1.5 crop that still gets close to 16MP of resolution.
And to speak of resolution, one thing is for sure, I am done in that chase. The only thing I can think of that really needs more than 36MP is a huge print, either on paper or canvas, and that is very rare sale for me these days. The world lives on Facebook and Instagram and the instant gratification of posting what you just did for the world to see. No image created for the web will ever benefit from more resolution unless the world overnight switched to 4K or higher displays which isn't going to happen for a while yet.
For sure it's only one opinion, but in the long run, looking back, if Canon had come out with a 20MP chip that had the same DR as the Sony's I would have been more than happy to stay in their camp.
Paul
-
The trouble with Canon is that their lens quality outstrips their current camera sensor quality, aggravating Canonistas that own good lenses. I have thought about renting a Sony A7r and Metabones adapter just to see what the Sony files look like with my lenses. I am an amateur, though, and don't have to compete with anyone other than myself, so I can live with a "pretty good" sensor while I pay attention to learning and shooting.
-
The Sony A7 and A7r were one of the best things that happened for a Canon shooter, as you can use all your lenses, with the metabones adaper and still have IS and AF. The latest adapter is much better on AF accuracy. Sadly with Nikon it becomes all manual.
Paul
-
Canon will rise again, to be sure. But they do strike me as being a bit like General Motors was a decade ago; still a market leader, but fat, complacent and unresponsive to their customer's changing needs. And we all know what happened to GM.
Michael
Yes and yes. They will rise again but they are a bit slow to adapt. We just have to wait and see. Meanwhile, the 5DMkIII and 1Dx are extremely good cameras for reportage, fashion and landscapes but not at the level of a Nikon D810.
We just have to wait and see.
-
... NOTE, the 6D is much better here as the noise will not have the banding, but instead looks like film grain....
I just posted some samples, taken at ISO 3200 and 16,000 (!) on another thread:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94724.msg784931#msg784931
-
I was once an avid follower of this site but have been in the 3rd world for several years and dropped out. Michael was once an avid Canon user. From what I gather not so much now. Why? Has the brand fallen that far behind?
dr b
Canon has chosen to focus on other things than Image Quality from the sensor subsystem. Canon makes their own sensors and has been unwilling go outside for better ones. If you compare their latest camera 7DmkII to the best Nikon offers in APS-C sensor, the D7100, The 7DmkII has tremendously more functionality (dual processor, more buffer, faster frame rate, 65 AF sensors all cross type, etc.), but inferior image quality capability (at least out to ISO 1600 or so where the D7100 comes down to the 7DmkII) in a package that is currently $800 more expensive. I will say Nikon is lacking in that they don't have a more functional APS-C body than the D7100.
And the D810...just has no competition from Canon. As an Amateur (that does some work for money), I talked my wife into a D810 because it is almost the perfect General Purpose DSLR that also has some longevity in it. Unlike my first 3 DSLRs, I expect to have it for some time to come. My sales pitch to the SuperWife was "It might not be the last camera I buy, but it's the 1st one I wouldn't mind getting stuck with!"
Last I looked, Nikon cut the 17% DSLR market share lead Canon had to under 7% in 2103. I suspect the all out pricing fit Nikon is having like selling the $1200 D7100 at $900 (http://smile.amazon.com/Nikon-D7100-24-1-DX-Format-Digital/dp/B00BI9X7UC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1418846496&sr=8-1&keywords=D7100) and dropping the D810 Price $300 is about trying to get the market share lead in 2014.
-
I suspect Canon will have an answer for the D810 any time now and then he whole Canon vs. Nikon debate will turn into the Canon vs. Nikon vs Sony debate.. ;)
-
Nobody knows what is going on at Canon, or at least nobody who is talking :)
Maybe the company will renew itself, just as it did with the FD to EF mount change.
Actually, the products which they have are pretty usable, they are just priced strangely and segmented strangely.
A good example is the 1DC which is the same as a 1Dx, but priced double because the 4K video firmware is unlocked.
When a company starts doing that sort of thing, it's a sign they're in trouble.
Or the C500 where the customer pays a fortune for Raw video, so all the enthusiasts are using Magic Lantern to shoot raw.
More people seem to be using the 5D3 for video than there are customers using the video models ...
I think there is some sort of internal war between divisions going on, with department heads insisting on their fiefdoms being protected from incursions by other product lines.
There is nothing wrong with the still photography side that a decent 50MP sensor wouldn't fix in one minute. Canon still has some of the best glass out there for pros, including their telephotos. Obviously, Canon have sensor options; why they won't pull the trigger on one of them is anybody's guess.
Edmund
-
I suspect Canon will have an answer for the D810 any time now and then he whole Canon vs. Nikon debate will turn into the Canon vs. Nikon vs Sony debate.. ;)
ROTFLMAO. Not that Canon can't or won't reverse the current trend as they did before. But predicting any day now to a guy that is still waiting for the Nikon D400 makes me laugh. If it was going to be any day, would the 7DmkII not have had a better sensor instead of similar to the 5 year old 7D with a little better gain strategy?
-
http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/12/opinion-more-on-sony-sensors-in-canon-dslrs/
-
Nobody knows what is going on at Canon, or at least nobody who is talking :)
Maybe the company will renew itself, just as it did with the FD to EF mount change.
Actually, the products which they have are pretty usable, they are just priced strangely and segmented strangely.
A good example is the 1DC which is the same as a 1Dx, but priced double because the 4K video firmware is unlocked.
When a company starts doing that sort of thing, it's a sign they're in trouble.
Or the C500 where the customer pays a fortune for Raw video, so all the enthusiasts are using Magic Lantern to shoot raw.
More people seem to be using the 5D3 for video than there are customers using the video models ...
I think there is some sort of internal war between divisions going on, with department heads insisting on their fiefdoms being protected from incursions by other product lines.
There is nothing wrong with the still photography side that a decent 50MP sensor wouldn't fix in one minute. Canon still has some of the best glass out there for pros, including their telephotos. Obviously, Canon have sensor options; why they won't pull the trigger on one of them is anybody's guess.
Edmund
Given that no one knows the exact scenario with Canon (or anyone that would say who really did know) this is a very sensible synopsis IMHO.
Tony Jay
-
One thing is for sure, Magic Lantern really up shows just how much potential that Canon choose to lock up in cameras like the 6D and 5D-MKIII. For a Canon shooter its a great asset.
Paul
-
One thing is for sure, Magic Lantern really up shows just how much potential that Canon choose to lock up in cameras like the 6D and 5D-MKIII. For a Canon shooter its a great asset.
Paul
You lose a lot of resolution in gaining more DR, though.
I wonder how much DR you could get if you applied similar techniques to a D810.
-
With Magic Lantern on a 6D What I found most impressive was:
raw video
dual iso, (which has gotten much better with time)
True intervalometer built in, you can actually time exposures longer than 30", thus no need for an internal intervalometer
Focus peaking
Nice additional features along with everything else they give a Canon user.
Paul
-
Hi,
My take is that Canon is just fine for all photographers except those who are shooting a low ISOs, on tripod, striving for maximum image quality.
For those photographers, Canon cameras still work fine, but competition will probably make a better work.
Best regards
Erik
I was once an avid follower of this site but have been in the 3rd world for several years and dropped out. Michael was once an avid Canon user. From what I gather not so much now. Why? Has the brand fallen that far behind?
dr b
-
If Canon does come up with a 48-50MP FX camera body in 2015, no doubt Nikon/Sony have something better up their sleeve and will show up in short order.
Since Nikon builds microscopes and also the steppers for making these sensors, Nikon probably struck up a backroom deal to have Sony use the Nikon steppers and had first run with the 36MP sensors for a short time, with Sony allowed to use them later.
Canon seemed to miss that microscope era where Nikon excelled and got them into really fine manufacturing control work, so they may do something else like a stacked sensor to hit 50MP, ala Sigma. Nikon may do it as an array again, just finer. Canon could go the way of Leica S2 with a larger sensor too and call it 50MP if they cannot get to the finer resolution of Nikon/Sony FX size.
Sort of fun to watch though...
SG
-
Hi,
My take is that Canon is just fine for all photographers except those who are shooting a low ISOs, on tripod, striving for maximum image quality.
For those photographers, Canon cameras still work fine, but competition will probably make a better work.
Best regards
Erik
While Canon has not come up with a sensor comparable to the D8XX, they haven't exactly been standing still in other areas. AFAIK the 1DX is the only camera dedicating an entire processor (the same one that runs everything in a 5D3) to AF, and is able to lock onto fast moving subjects based on their shape, color, and distance to track them wherever they go in the entire AF area. Over the last few weeks I've seen this repeatedly maintain AF lock on landing birds even when they fly behind tall grass, provided you can still see them through the grass. I also found that a one second burst at 12 FPS when a bird is where you want it relative to the light and background produces at least one tack sharp photo with the wing position you want nearly every time, with good IQ through ISO 6400. I've done this with slower cameras with some good results, but it's much more a trial and error proposition than something you can do almost at will. This camera also has the most customizable AF system I've seen. Similarly, there's another processor dedicated to the metering system, sensing both color and brightness, making it easier to get a good exposure when there's no time to be fussing with adjustments.
As a somewhat unrelated aside, it's not well known that Canon cameras using smaller and lower voltage battery packs than those in Canon's 1-series (7.2 volts vs. 11.1 volts) can not move the heavier mechanisms in large lenses like the 400mm F/2.8 through 800mm F/5.6 at their maximum AF speed. I assume the same is true in the Nikon line, as the D4 uses a large 10.1 volt battery while the D8XX uses a smaller 7 volt battery.
My point here is that you'll always be more successful using the best tool for the job at hand. IMO, for landscapes and slower, easier to track subjects the D8XX is undoubtedly the best small format camera going. For very fast moving subjects at high ISOs there are better tools. Some of those are made by Nikon (D4/D4S), but it's arguable that the best of those is still Canon. If you can't capture a useable photo (focus, exposure) in the first place, more subtle differences in IQ become irrelevant.
Happy Holidays,
-
I have indeed noticed an even slightly faster focusing speed with the 300/400mm f2.8 on the D810 when using the vertical grip and D4s batteries. Regardless, the vertical grip is often simply mandatory when shooting with those lenses on a monopod.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have indeed noticed an even slightly faster focusing speed with the 300/400mm f2.8 on the D810 when using the vertical grip and D4s batteries. Regardless, the vertical grip is often simply mandatory when shooting with those lenses on a monopod.
Cheers,
Bernard
I think you'd notice even faster focus with a D4. The grips (AFAIK all brands) provide more capacity but at the same voltage provided by a single battery. The larger packs in cameras like the D4 and 1DX provide several extra volts, increasing the power available to move large optical mechanisms quickly.
-
Canon's 1DX has an 11 V battery, 7D2 and 5D3 and 6D have 7 V battery. Yes, the 1DX is the preferred pro sports and wildlife camera partly because it really can push those 400 f/2.8 supertele lens focusing elements faster than the 7 V battery-operated cameras can. That being said, the old and simple design of the 400 f/5.6 means that the focusing element assembly is light enough that even 7 V is good enough for blazing focus speed.
-
... the old and simple design of the 400 f/5.6 means that the focusing element assembly is light enough that even 7 V is good enough for blazing focus speed.
That lens also has great optical quality, and unlike the others it's hand holdable and a real bargain.
-
I think you'd notice even faster focus with a D4. The grips (AFAIK all brands) provide more capacity but at the same voltage provided by a single battery. The larger packs in cameras like the D4 and 1DX provide several extra volts, increasing the power available to move large optical mechanisms quickly.
You get slightly faster time to first focus with heavy glass, but no better tracking. This is because tracking involves slower movements anyway, whereas initial focus requires jumping to one specific point.
Regardless, this is a potential area of improvement for all OEM grips. At the moment, all a grip offers is increased capacity (it takes all of 2 seconds to change a battery anyway) and extra size and weight which is good for some people with big, clumsy hands, but worse than useless for someone like me who has no trouble with gripless cameras and hates the extra bulk and weight. An OEM grip offers nothing over a third-party grip. But if they can increase the voltage, either by running two batteries in series or using a different battery, and offer faster AF, then they may actually be useful on dedicated wildlife trips.
-
I think it does matter to "some people" it depends what your needs are and type of shooting.
What I always hated about digital was the blown highlights and poor dynamic range (in the early days) things have come on an awful lot DR matters to me and I don't just shoot landscapes, for that reason I won't invest in Canon owned a few cameras used a lot but the sad reality is even the cheapest crop sensor DSLR I have spanks the rear end off any Canon for DR it's just the way it is they have not moved forward. I'd say even my Fuji X10 would outdo a Canon DSLR for DR too
Of course there are a lot of factors Canon have a massive system, tons of s/h bodies and lenses but image wise for me nope they don't really meet the mark.
Canon used to have the best sensors, now they have the worst everyone outdoes them Fuji's X-Trans, Sony made sensors they wipe the floor with Canon. Why suffer bad DR becaue the company won't invest in technology or use other makers sensors?
You can have all the features in the world but what comes out of the can counts for more
-
even the cheapest crop sensor DSLR I have spanks the rear end off any Canon for DR
I have literally no idea how to respond to that ridiculous comment without either calling into question your honesty or your competence, but it's BS of the very highest order.
If you can't get all of the DR you need out of a Canon - especially the more recent ones, like those in the 70D and 7D Mk II - then you don't need a better camera.
You need lessons.
Canon's sensors do not "lack" DR: some older Canon sensors are prone to more pattern noise in pushed low ISO shadows (which is not the same as less DR), but the latest Canon crop sensors are essentially FPN free (completely so, if you use DPP), allowing for multiple-stop shadow adjustments without detriment; and they also have more than enough headroom at the top end of the histogram to allow for a more ETTR approach.
And beyond about 800 ISO - no DR difference anyway.
The biggest problem that Canon sensors have is people not understanding that their favourite converters are the problem: Lightroom for example, is not in the same league as (say) Photo Ninja at maximising the available DR in a Canon file; but rather than investigate the alternatives, let's just blame the sensor...
It ain't the sensor. It's the user...
-
. . . . but the sad reality is even the cheapest crop sensor DSLR I have spanks the rear end off any Canon for DR it's just the way it is
Holy crap - or maybe just fine hyperbole?
-
... the latest Canon crop sensors are essentially FPN free (completely so, if you use DPP), allowing for multiple-stop shadow adjustments without detriment... favourite converters are the problem: Lightroom for example, is not in the same league as (say) Photo Ninja at maximising the available DR in a Canon file...
Care to support that with your own comparative testing? Or at least provide a link to someone else's?
-
The 400 f/5.6L, a "specialty" lens just as much as the 1x - 5x macro MPE-65 and the two wide angle TS lenses, is one of the reasons I chose Canon, and for my needs (hand held birding photos) it functions brilliantly. Current camera and this lens weigh 2.1 kg (would be 2.4 kg with 7D2). Next jump in quality would need ~$15,000.00 for FF body and 500 mm F/4L IS II lens.
The thought about trying different RAW converters is interesting. I have only tried Lr. I suppose that I could keep Lr as a cataloguing program and try DPP (free!), Capture One, photo ninja, DXO, etc RAW converters. As long as the "Trial" watermark isn't straight over the shadow to be lifted, I should be able to sample the competing converters for free.
-
I think it does matter to "some people" it depends what your needs are and type of shooting.
What I always hated about digital was the blown highlights and poor dynamic range (in the early days) things have come on an awful lot DR matters to me and I don't just shoot landscapes, for that reason I won't invest in Canon owned a few cameras used a lot but the sad reality is even the cheapest crop sensor DSLR I have spanks the rear end off any Canon for DR it's just the way it is they have not moved forward. I'd say even my Fuji X10 would outdo a Canon DSLR for DR too
In the early days of digital SLRs it was like shooting slide film with the added downside of shadow noise. So you were balancing not only blowing highlights with blocking up shadows, but noisy shadows above the deep shadows.
Bottom Line is you can make great images with either a Nikon or Canon DSLR. Some shots benefit from the better sensor subsytem of the Nikon while some benefit more from the functionality of the Canon.
As a Nikon shooter there should be a 24MP variant of the D810 and a DX variant of the D810. I won't touch the D5 end since I have never owned a model at the top end. Not sure why the D750 ended up in the 'Enthusiast' line with the D610 instead of the professional line, but...
-
The biggest problem that Canon sensors have is people not understanding that their favourite converters are the problem: Lightroom for example, is not in the same league as (say) Photo Ninja at maximising the available DR in a Canon file; but rather than investigate the alternatives, let's just blame the sensor...
I'd like to see some convincing evidence of this.
As a result of your post I've downloaded and spent a few hours trying out Photo Ninja on some challenging files, but haven't seen any significant improvement in DR recovery from PN than LR.
I could probably fill a long post about how poor the usability and speed of PN is, but that's another issue altogether.
I'd agree that dynamic range from Canon's is mostly sufficient already. There's a lot of rot talked about the importance of DR, but frankly a lot of time it's not a significant issue at all, it's just the currently fashionable aspect of photographic quality to chase after.
-
I'd agree that dynamic range from Canon's is mostly sufficient already. There's a lot of rot talked about the importance of DR, but frankly a lot of time it's not a significant issue at all, it's just the currently fashionable aspect of photographic quality to chase after.
I will point out there is a whole area of photography called HDR that arose specifically due to the inability to capture Dynamic Range in a single image.
The first thing I shot after testing the D810 was a military funeral. A cold, windy day with absolutely no clouds, bright sunlight, 1pm. They put an opaque canopy up with wind walls on the back and one side due to the wind. Widow was sitting at the edge of the canopy with half her face in bright sunlight and the other half and the rest of the family in deep shade. The D810 has the best DR of any DSLR on the market right now and I could have used 4 more stops easy.
So you are correct, there are lots of time DR is not an issue except for Sunrise, Sunset, Night Scapes, sun/shade, lights in the frame, exposure misses...
-
... As a result of your post I've downloaded and spent a few hours trying out Photo Ninja on some challenging files, but haven't seen any significant improvement in DR recovery from PN than LR...
The same here, except I tried the latest Canon's DPP. Definitely no improvement, and possibly even slightly worse than LR. I was looking specifically for noise in underexposed areas. I so wished Keith were right, alas...
-
Canon's sensors do not "lack" DR: some older Canon sensors are prone to more pattern noise in pushed low ISO shadows (which is not the same as less DR), but the latest Canon crop sensors are essentially FPN free (completely so, if you use DPP), allowing for multiple-stop shadow adjustments without detriment; and they also have more than enough headroom at the top end of the histogram to allow for a more ETTR approach.
And beyond about 800 ISO - no DR difference anyway.
You stressing the lack of DR difference above 800 ISO means you at least acknowledge the difference of DR at lower ISO?
If there is a difference at lower ISO but no lack on Canon side, does it mean that other cameras have more than enough DR?
That is at least one statment most here will clearly disagree with, Canon user or not. There are many scenes of photographic interest where light is such that even 2 more stops on top of the class leading D810 would still bring more value. Yes, there are scenes where a point & shoot will have plenty of DR but I'd rather not have my equipment dictate what I can photograph comfortably. Although I liked the look of slides, I loved knowing that I could use negatives when needed.
If you recall, many MFDB users have been spending tens of thousands of US$ for years mostly to get better DR, yet the latest Sony sensors are ahead of these MF wonders and the gap with Canon FF is significantly larger than the gap ever was between 35mm and the backs.
The way I look at it, Canon's inability to compete credibly on this metric, and the denial of some Canon users, is hurting all photographers by slowing down progress. That's a bit annoying.
Had Canon not released a 3.8kg 400mm f2.8, my Nikon would still weight 5kg. I don't think any Nikon user ever claimed that the obvious superiority of the Canon wasn't real, even if it was possible to take amazing images with the excellent Nikon 400mm f2.8 VR.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I switched from a Leica R 6 film camera to Canon 20D in 2004. The quality was unbelievable compared to my scanned film files. The time and money savings made it a no brainer to shoot only digital. When the Canon 5D 2 first came out I purchased one and can only say what a lemon. Focus was terrible and all too often when I was on a shoot the camera just wouldn’t work. Sent it back to Canon 2 times never really fixed the problem. I was so angry with Canon I would have switched brands. At that time no one made a 35mm DSLR that could touch Canons image quality. After a couple of years of frustrations I purchased a second 5D 2 and it has worked perfectly for years. I now use the 5D 3 and it’s a much better camera than the model 2.
To reduce my hiking weight this year I purchased the Fuji X-T1 and 18-55 lens .Testing the Canon 5D 3 and Fuji side by side. The Canon is sharper and the Fuji does have a larger DR. The one thing I notice is how much better the color pallet of the Fuji compares to the Canon 5D 3 on most photos. I don’t need as much time to correct the Fuji photos in Lightroom. I have no plans to switch to Fuji as my main Camera. I have too many L lenses that Fuji can’t compete with at this time. I hope that Canon would increase its DR more than resolution. I think this will improve image quality more than MP count but want complain if they did both.
JRay Upchurch
-
I will point out there is a whole area of photography called HDR that arose specifically due to the inability to capture Dynamic Range in a single image.
Really ?, you think the people using HDR are doing it to carefully capture a full range of tones their cameras can't handle ?
Do a search on Flickr for HDR https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=HDR look at the absolute horrors that search finds. Almost all the results use HDR as a gimmick effect, highly saturated colours, over sharpened, very contrasty, so the irony is that they are showing less of the original scene's tonality.
Sure, some folk do need to capture extreme ranges of luminance and manage to bring pull the data together in a realistic way, but it's a real exception to what HDR has come to mean. Even then a lot of compressed tonal range images simply look wrong and unnatural.
-
in order to kept real, the 6D is superior to the 5-series in most, if not all important ways. Just shy on build quality.
Still, it's no 810.
the A7R is more like it, but a troubled design. I don't think Nikon got and exclusive on the 36 MPx chip. I think Sony thought it would be limited in its popularity. When they saw the sales figures they pooped their drawers and quickly came out with the A7R. It shows all the flaws of an under tested design.
-
Really ?, you think the people using HDR are doing it to carefully capture a full range of tones their cameras can't handle ?
Do a search on Flickr for HDR https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=HDR look at the absolute horrors that search finds. Almost all the results use HDR as a gimmick effect, highly saturated colours, over sharpened, very contrasty, so the irony is that they are showing less of the original scene's tonality.
Sure, some folk do need to capture extreme ranges of luminance and manage to bring pull the data together in a realistic way, but it's a real exception to what HDR has come to mean. Even then a lot of compressed tonal range images simply look wrong and unnatural.
That's not HDR. That's just bad tone-mapping.
Which is just as possible without HDR software or multiple images.
As a matter of fact. using a graduated ND filter also gives you HDR. It just limits you to a straight, linear zone of transition.
-
I have literally no idea how to respond to that ridiculous comment without either calling into question your honesty or your competence, but it's BS of the very highest order.
If you can't get all of the DR you need out of a Canon - especially the more recent ones, like those in the 70D and 7D Mk II - then you don't need a better camera.
You need lessons.
Canon's sensors do not "lack" DR: some older Canon sensors are prone to more pattern noise in pushed low ISO shadows (which is not the same as less DR), but the latest Canon crop sensors are essentially FPN free (completely so, if you use DPP), allowing for multiple-stop shadow adjustments without detriment; and they also have more than enough headroom at the top end of the histogram to allow for a more ETTR approach.
And beyond about 800 ISO - no DR difference anyway.
The biggest problem that Canon sensors have is people not understanding that their favourite converters are the problem: Lightroom for example, is not in the same league as (say) Photo Ninja at maximising the available DR in a Canon file; but rather than investigate the alternatives, let's just blame the sensor...
It ain't the sensor. It's the user...
My My... such rudeness.
Various review and test sites do seem to be saying that Canon lack behind the competition for DR (I suppose they could all be wrong, fanboys or using the wrong converters?) although that brief statement in itself is too broad and needs to be qualified but I'm not going to even attempt to do that here. Anyone with an open mind wishing to read on can Google or otherwise research themselves.
The thing with men and camera gear or any other gear for that matter is criticising gear is almost like questioning their manhood and the hyperbole gets out of hand very quickly. IMVHO that's a shame.
-
the hyperbole gets out of hand very quickly. IMVHO that's a shame.
Quite. People expect manufacturers to instantly respond to their competitors products without any regard to their routine product development and release cycles.
If you dig into Canon's past, you should see that next year something new and interesting is likely to be released. Having heard that Canon Europe were in Instanbul at the start of this month photographing their new products for release next year, so I think they're just sticking to their schedules.
Most of us can't afford to swap systems every time something newer comes along. I was delighted with the performance of my current camera (5Dii) when I bought it, just because Nikon have released the D800 hasn't stopped my Canon continuing to deliver great images.
-
... If you dig into Canon's past, you should see that next year something new and interesting is likely to be released...
You mean for the tenth anniversary from the last time "something new and interesting" was released by Canon? :P
-
The thing with men and camera gear or any other gear for that matter is criticising gear is almost like questioning their manhood and the hyperbole gets out of hand very quickly. IMVHO that's a shame.
Agreed. But the IRRATIONAL defense of Canon's lack of progress in sensor development has been eyepopping. There are lots of reasons to purchase a Canon DSLR not least of which is a long time investment in lenses and accessories. I know I stayed with Nikon during the out years when Canon was kicking their butt with better sensors, but I had no illusions that that Canon was not kicking their butt.
If Canon shooters want to keep getting inferior sensors, all they need do is keep irrationally defending Canon's inferior sensors. I continually criticize Nikon's market placements and lack of features in the hopes that they will get corrected. But, I own 8,000 shares of AAPL stock precisely because Apple users irrationally purchase Apple products regardless of their position in the marketplace. The iPhone 6 is a catch up to 2 year old Androids, but people buy them anyway, for which I am grateful and profitable.
-
What constitutes "irrational defense"? Defense of the camera system is not necessarily a defense of the sensor, merely acquiescence to the sensor, because the system works "well enough" given the particular user's needs, prior investment in the system, and pocketbook. Furthermore, past history has shown that the two camera companies catch up to each other in significant ways, given a little time. Canon now sees mirrorless camera (Sony) manufacturers nipping away at the loyal base of Canon users with significant lens inventory. Right now a A7r plus metabones plus "your favorite lens" may be a little clunky in operation, but the Sony camera to Canon lens experience is expected to improve, so Canon should be working away at an equivalent or better sensor for landscape / still life shooters. Action shooters wouldn't leave Canon, and astrophotography shooters will put up with any amount of inconvenience.
-
My point here is that you'll always be more successful using the best tool for the job at hand. IMO, for landscapes and slower, easier to track subjects the D8XX is undoubtedly the best small format camera going. For very fast moving subjects at high ISOs there are better tools. Some of those are made by Nikon (D4/D4S), but it's arguable that the best of those is still Canon. If you can't capture a useable photo (focus, exposure) in the first place, more subtle differences in IQ become irrelevant.
Happy Holidays,
There was actually a guy on FB, who had the D810, who tried to capture a low-light image of a Jaguar that had killed a caiman in South America, at the very moment of the pounce.
It was a sensational moment, a compelling capture (in the sense that it was riveting), but unfortunately the image quality sucked.
If only he had the right tool for the job ... a low-light, fast-action camera like the 7DII or 1Dx (of D4) ... not a D810.
Jack
-
What constitutes "irrational defense"? Defense of the camera system is not necessarily a defense of the sensor, merely acquiescence to the sensor, because the system works "well enough" given the particular user's needs, prior investment in the system, and pocketbook.
Irrational defense are things like "it doesn't matter".
As I said, there are reasons why you might buy a Canon over Nikon or Nikon over Canon based on something other than the quality of the output "Not least of which is a long time investment in lenses and accessories!"
I don't begrudge anyone making whatever choices they make for whatever reasons they make them. But in discussing options and making recommendations to people, it comes down basically to lying!! For example, in a comparison of 7DmkII and the D7100, there is no question the Canon is a more functional camera. It's higher frame rate, larger buffer, dual processors, quicker auto-focus is a step ahead of the D7100. But who really needs that; about 15% of buyers looking for a crop sensor camera. Very few people NEED 10FPS versus 6FPS for example. I shoot all sorts of outdoor sports with the D7100 and find it more than capable. But then, I remember shooting sports with finger winding and 2.5 fps auto winders. The vast majority of users would be better served with the D7100, especially at a current $800 discount to the 7DmkII.
That said, Nikon deserves criticism for not releasing a more capable body with a better frame rate, bigger buffer and better throughput with the same 24MP (no OLPF) sensor Subsystem as the D7100. I am a former D300 shooter that waited forever for an upgrade that never came. Shame on Nikon! I find them idiotic for not releasing a 24MP version of the D810 with better frame rate made possible simply by less pixel data to process for basically negligible development cost! Why release the D750 to compete with the D610 and ignore the D700 faithful?
-
There was actually a guy on FB, who had the D810, who tried to capture a low-light image of a Jaguar that had killed a caiman in South America, at the very moment of the pounce.
It was a sensational moment, a compelling capture (in the sense that it was riveting), but unfortunately the image quality sucked.
If only he had the right tool for the job ... a low-light, fast-action camera like the 7DII or 1Dx (of D4) ... not a D810.
Jack
What? The D810 has better high ISO performance than either the 7DmkII or the 1Dx. If the image quality sucked it was on the photographer! Hell, the D7100 is the better of the 7DmkII up to 1600 where it drops down to the Canon level.
BTW, this qualifies as IRRATIONAL DEFENSE!
-
What? The D810 has better high ISO performance than either the 7DmkII or the 1Dx. If the image quality sucked it was on the photographer! Hell, the D7100 is the better of the 7DmkII up to 1600 where it drops down to the Canon level.
It could very well have been the photographer, true.
Or the lack of responsiveness of the AF mechanism.
Or the fact maybe it was a high-ISO issue for the step-up (1Dx/D4), etc.
It's hard to say, but why the distress and the exclamation points?
BTW, this qualifies as IRRATIONAL DEFENSE!
Irrational? I'm not so sure. Most sports photogs, and bird/wildlife photogs don't use the D810 for the very reason it's not an action camera.
Quite frankly, I would call your screaming in all-capital letters + overuse of exclamation points "irrational" ...
Jack
-
It could very well have been the photographer, true.
Or the lack of responsiveness of the AF mechanism.
Or the fact maybe it was a high-ISO issue for the step-up (1Dx/D4), etc.
It's hard to say, but why the distress and the exclamation points?
Irrational? I'm not so sure. Most sports photogs, and bird/wildlife photogs don't use the D810 for the very reason it's not an action camera.
Quite frankly, I would call your screaming in all-capital letters + overuse of exclamation points "irrational" ...
Jack
You indicated the image quality Sucked! Obviously, with the best sensor subsytem of any DSLR in the world, it isn't a sensor problem. Now you say it might have been the AF subsystem, but since it has the same AF as a D4 that is unlikely. The D810 is as responsive a camera as I've ever owned. It is definitely a photographer issue.
And yes, the D810 is not marketed, nor intended, as a fast action camera. It is not the camera of choice in the Nikon line if you are shooting high speed action. But that does not mean it can not be used for that purpose. I shoot fast action sports with it. I'll take a skilled photographer shooting the D810 with it's pedestrian 5fps over unskilled photographers with 10-12 fps cameras any day.
John Shaw's answer to the question (with images): Can the D800 be used for Wildlife Photography? (http://www.johnshawphoto.com/nikon-d800-action/)
-
You indicated the image quality Sucked!
I did. And it did.
But, again, why the exclamation mark?
Time to take your meds perhaps?
Obviously, with the best sensor subsytem of any DSLR in the world, it isn't a sensor problem.
I never said it was a sensor problem; I said it didn't appear to be the right tool for the job.
Do you understand the difference?
Now you say it might have been the AF subsystem, but since it has the same AF as a D4 that is unlikely.
No, now you are starting to get the idea that there are other elements to a great shot than a fine sensor ::)
Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why there are no Hasselblads being used for sports or on a safari, if excellent sensors are the answer to everything ???
It is definitely a photographer issue.
No, that is your conclusion alone.
On other shots, static, the guy has taken some really nice images.
And yes, the D810 is not marketed, nor intended, as a fast action camera. It is not the camera of choice in the Nikon line if you are shooting high speed action.
Exactly, genius, it's not the right tool for that kind of job.
Pretty much what I said :D
But that does not mean it can not be used for that purpose. I shoot fast action sports with it.
You can use a screwdriver to pound a nail, too, if you want ... but a hammer does a better job.
Um, don't really care about what you do. This isn't about you, nor was my post directed to you.
It was a statement that the hallowed D810 flubbed in a certain context.
Are you saying there aren't better choices in certain contexts?
I'll take a skilled photographer shooting the D810 with it's pedestrian 5fps over unskilled photographers with 10-12 fps cameras any day.
Not sure I care what you'd take either.
It's been my observation that most skilled sports photogs / bird photogs are out there with 1Dxs and D4s, not D810s.
D810s are pretty much for landscape photogs and other non-moving, decent-light applications.
Can't think of anyone serious who uses them for low-light/fast-action shooting, can you?
John Shaw's answer to the question (with images): Can the D800 be used for Wildlife Photography? (http://www.johnshawphoto.com/nikon-d800-action/)
Thanks for John Shaw's opinion, though I am not sure I asked for it.
Do you really think that was an in-depth analysis, or that those were compelling images, BTW?
Sorry if I ruffled your feathers. I posted a link to a guy who had the D4 and the D810, and any time he went low light, or had action shots, he pretty much put the D810 down and said it was nowhere near as effective as the D4. The D810 wasn't the right tool for the job. Didn't you say that back a few paragraphs also?
Maybe that's why the D4 is twice as much, other considerations besides "sensor only," ya think? ::)
What are we arguing about?
It seems like you've already admitted my original premise (your word: "the D810 is not marketed, nor intended, as a fast action camera"), but still just can't seem to stand the idea that the D810 might not be the best choice for everything.
Jack
-
There was actually a guy on FB, who had the D810, who tried to capture a low-light image of a Jaguar that had killed a caiman in South America, at the very moment of the pounce.
It was a sensational moment, a compelling capture (in the sense that it was riveting), but unfortunately the image quality sucked.
If only he had the right tool for the job ... a low-light, fast-action camera like the 7DII or 1Dx (of D4) ... not a D810.
John,
If I may, have you shot action with any of these cameras?
I have with the D810 using both 300mm f2.8 and the new 400mm f2.8 E and the camera performed very well.
What makes you think that the D810 is responsible for the failure you are reporting on?
Do you have information about the light level when he attempted to capture that scene, what lens he was shooting with, the level of skills of the photographer capturing action in low light,...
Do you have a comparison image shot with the 7DII in the same conditions?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Time to take your meds perhaps?
Let's not needle people with insinuations about mental instability here.
-
John,
If I may, have you shot action with any of these cameras?
You may, and no.
I have with the D810 using both 300mm f2.8 and the new 400mm f2.8 E and the camera performed very well.
I don't know what that means exactly. Compared to what?
What makes you think that the D810 is responsible for the failure you are reporting on?
Because non-biased photographers, with both the D810 and the D4x, have directly stated that the D810 falters in this type of setting.
Do you have information about the light level when he attempted to capture that scene, what lens he was shooting with, the level of skills of the photographer capturing action in low light,...
The information was presented in the heading (it was either pre-dawn, or twilight, I forget which) and you could see it in the photo. It was dark, and there was the action of a jaguar pouncing on a caiman.
It was pretty self-explanatory.
Do you have a comparison image shot with the 7DII in the same conditions?
I am not talking about the 7DII.
But I would imagine it would be tough to "switch systems" in the middle of a kill-scene at twilight in the Amazon.
I also don't think the guy shoots Canon.
I was merely saying that the D810 is not the right tool for every job.
Jack
PS: I still may get the D810, as I shoot mostly macro, which typically involves limited movement and benefits from high-res/dr. Kinda waiting to see what the new year brings though, as I won't be active again until April. Working on a huge project. Just bought Busch's new book on the D810 and am going to be reviewing it next week when it arrives. Does the LCD allow you to blow-up an image 10x the size for fine-focus?
-
I just posted some samples, taken at ISO 3200 and 16,000 (!) on another thread:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94724.msg784931#msg784931
That is pretty impressive actually. Nice.
-
Oh, the 6D is a sleeper. Best camera in their line up actually. Very flexible and can capture many different scenes. Color rendition is very important to me, that's Nikon's Achilles heel. Everything is red. More important than DR actually.
Every time this issue is discussed, it's all about DR and charts. I'm with Nancy. It's about much more than just DR and charts. My 6D focuses much faster than any Nikon I've owned except the D4. The D4 is a monster in that department!
John, you left out the unnecessary ego-tripper 8000 shares of AAPL.
Swager.. I'm very happy for you. May you also live long and have fun. With that ego it's not going to be easy
-
Oh, the 6D is a sleeper. Best camera in their line up actually. Very flexible and can capture many different scenes. Color rendition is very important to me, that's Nikon's Achilles heel. Everything is red. More important than DR actually.
If you don't like the colour rendition, you can adjust it easily in post-processing. You can't add more DR in post-processing if the original file doesn't have it.
I personally prefer Nikon's default colour rendition. Canon gets things far too yellow/orange most of the time.
Every time this issue is discussed, it's all about DR and charts. I'm with Nancy. It's about much more than just DR and charts. My 6D focuses much faster than any Nikon I've owned except the D4. The D4 is a monster in that department!
Then you're doing something wrong with your Nikon.
The D810 has a monster of an AF system - the equal of the 1Dx in tracking accuracy, easily better than the 5D3. The D800/D800e is another story entirely.
-
http://gorillasites.blogspot.com/2008/05/12-steps-of-measurebators-anonymous.html
Happy Holidays !
-
You can use a screwdriver to pound a nail, too, if you want ... but a hammer does a better job.
Um, don't really care about what you do. This isn't about you, nor was my post directed to you.
It was a statement that the hallowed D810 flubbed in a certain context.
Are you saying there aren't better choices in certain contexts?
Jack
I think the problem here is obvious. You seem desperate to blame the image quality that sucked on the D810 because it is hallowed, you don't own one, and Canon doesn't make it.
What you're missing is that there is a whole scale on which performance/functionality is measured and only when the tool falls below that minimum required to capture the particular image does the tool become inappropriate for use. And skilled craftsmen are capable of making the tools they have on hand function to execute a wide array of tasks. While the 7DmkII would not be the 'best' option to make portraits, it is certainly is up to the task. I've already conceded that the D810 is not the best option, but it is a valid option for action.
While you are unlikely to take advice, I will leave you with that of quality guru W. Edwards Demming which would be learn to perform to the level at which you no longer require the assistance of the specialty tool...then buy it. Learn to shoot action photography with a generalist camera. At the point you become proficient with it, then buy the action camera. His point is that specialty tools are intended to give the skilled efficiency and consistency, not to give the unskilled skill!
-
I think the problem here is obvious. You seem desperate to blame the image quality that sucked on the D810 because it is hallowed, you don't own one, and Canon doesn't make it.
Yes, the problem here is obvious, and it's you.
You're the only one who's desperate to do anything. (Please revisit your previous exclamation points, all-caps usage, etc.)
I merely said the D810 wasn't the best tool for the job (fast-action, low-light photography), and even you agreed with this, so I am not sure what you're still squawkin' about ???
-
Oh, the 6D is a sleeper. Best camera in their line up actually. Very flexible and can capture many different scenes. Color rendition is very important to me, that's Nikon's Achilles heel. Everything is red. More important than DR actually.
Every time this issue is discussed, it's all about DR and charts. I'm with Nancy. It's about much more than just DR and charts. My 6D focuses much faster than any Nikon I've owned except the D4. The D4 is a monster in that department!
John, you left out the unnecessary ego-tripper 8000 shares of AAPL.
Swager.. I'm very happy for you. May you also live long and have fun. With that ego it's not going to be easy
The 6D does impress in its color rendition, true. That is one of the reasons Scott Kelby switched from the D4 to the 1Dx, the Canon's rendering of skin tones was superior (in addition to other highly-useful scrolling/image-tagging features the Canon had).
One of the things I am waiting for, actually, nobody has yet ... and that is 4K video capability.
I have a feeling that "the next" high mpx camera (from Canon or from whomever) is going to have 4K video capability, and (since I just purchased a 70" 4K TFX-certified television) I am wondering if I should delay pushing the "buy" button on my next camera purchase, until I see the 4K technology in that camera as well.
I have a feeling it's coming sooner, rather than later ...
Jack
-
One of the things I am waiting for, actually, nobody has yet ... and that is 4K video capability.
I have a feeling that "the next" high mpx camera (from Canon or from whomever) is going to have 4K video capability, and (since I just purchased a 70" 4K TFX-certified Television) I am wondering if I should delay pushing the "buy" button on my next camera purchase, until I see the 4K technology in that camera as well.
I have a feeling it's coming sooner, rather than later ...
The Samsung NX-1, for one, produces stunning video, where each frame is derived from a full 28MP readout of the sensor. Though I haven't seen it on a 4K display, the 1080HD output (downsampled) is of the highest order of fine detail-retention. DPs might like the "look" of the Alexa, but Samsung lept way ahead of the DSLR market with this. Canon and Nikon have some serious catching up to do. Sony could match it, if they finally find their focus.
-
What is interesting is that, as I have been TV shopping, I learned that Sony has had 4K capability in its sensors for quite awhile, and that over 90% of all high-end movies are shot on Sony sensors. IMAX theatres are running 4K, and now the TVs are beginning to come out with the 4K technology.
I learned that Samsung TVs for example, offer the 4K rendering, but their mid-level TVs only have mid-level rendering engines, while their high-end televisions offer their best rendering engines. Sony, however, offers its best engines, even on their smaller, less-expensive 4K televisions.
The newer Sharp 4K televisions are the only ones that are TFX-certified by movie-industry standards.
It seems Sony has a virtual lock on sensor technology leadership, and that the next camera sensor which comes out with 4K technology is going to be of Sony (or even Samsung) technology, as Samsung recently impressed with its new camera offerings.
However, in person, the Samsung televisions seemed cheap compared to the Sony televisions. Samsung is offering a "curved look" which does nothing for me, actually, except make the TV appear smaller and less impressive IMO.
Jack
-
The Samsung NX-1, for one, produces stunning video, where each frame is derived from a full 28MP readout of the sensor. Though I haven't seen it on a 4K display, the 1080HD output (downsampled) is of the highest order of fine detail-retention. DPs might like the "look" of the Alexa, but Samsung lept way ahead of the DSLR market with this. Canon and Nikon have some serious catching up to do. Sony could match it, if they finally find their focus.
Funny, I was just posting about Samsung when you were also :)
I should also add their rendering on their better TVs is stellar also, but most were very thin and fragile-looking in person.
The Sony's and Sharp's appeared more "robust" and more like quality furniture IMO. The Samsungs looked like "thin, plastic," curved things ...
Jack
-
Doesn't Panny's GH-4 do that trick?
the A7s too with some kind of outboard device?
The 6D does impress in its color rendition, true. That is one of the reasons Scott Kelby switched from the D4 to the 1Dx, the Canon's rendering of skin tones was superior (in addition to other highly-useful scrolling/image-tagging features the Canon had).
One of the things I am waiting for, actually, nobody has yet ... and that is 4K video capability.
I have a feeling that "the next" high mpx camera (from Canon or from whomever) is going to have 4K video capability, and (since I just purchased a 70" 4K TFX-certified television) I am wondering if I should delay pushing the "buy" button on my next camera purchase, until I see the 4K technology in that camera as well.
I have a feeling it's coming sooner, rather than later ...
Jack
-
Oh, shyte. Not this again
Please hear me instead of commenting on what you somehow think I said
I never used an 810... I cannot comment on the 810. I did have a D4 and it was a super-focuser. That's all I'm saying. You're attributing far too much to my comments. I do not comment on things I do not know of.
Had a 7100 as a lightweight alternative... some may like it but I felt it was not for me. Tried a 600 and truly disliked it.
Was going through a LR catalog and was just scrolling images. Suddenly I said, "...wow those images are great. What camera did i use? Metadata says Canon Mk III. Went out and bought a Canon 6D and the 24-105 "L" . just loved the renditions. Then went through my Nikon images and tried to match the Canon's color. It wasn't that easy for me anyway. Sold the D4 and some tasty N-glass. Have never looked back
Now I'm going Sony and while the images come out initially too red as well, it's easier to make them likable
Now before all the Nikonistas start, don't bother. My preferences are mine alone. There should be no inferences that I suggest this for others. We should all make ourselves happy and comfortable, not follow anyone else.
Using a Metabones adapter or EF-mount lenses but still keep the 6D body since I think for portraiture it can't be beat.
Different horses for different courses. The Sony A7s for walking around and the a6000 for video is a potent combination
If you don't like the colour rendition, you can adjust it easily in post-processing. You can't add more DR in post-processing if the original file doesn't have it.
I personally prefer Nikon's default colour rendition. Canon gets things far too yellow/orange most of the time.
Then you're doing something wrong with your Nikon.
The D810 has a monster of an AF system - the equal of the 1Dx in tracking accuracy, easily better than the 5D3. The D800/D800e is another story entirely.
-
The 6D does impress in its color rendition, true. That is one of the reasons Scott Kelby switched from the D4 to the 1Dx, the Canon's rendering of skin tones was superior (in addition to other highly-useful scrolling/image-tagging features the Canon had).
Let's be clear.
Scott Kelby was shooting Nikon when he was on Nikon's payroll, he is now shooting Canon because they wrote a bigger check. Camera performance has absolutely zero to do with it. If it had this would be the worst timing ever to change, Nikon's full frame line up has objectively never been that clearly ahead and that's precisely why Canon marketing needed someone like him to influence those guys who buy based on references.
Besides, skin tones are probably his least concern considering his published work... wouldn't you think?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Let's be clear.
Scott Kelby was shooting Nikon when he was on Nikon's payroll, he is now shooting Canon because they wrote a bigger check. Camera performance has absolutely zero to do with it. If it had this would be the worst timing ever to change, Nikon's full frame line up has objectively never been that clearly ahead.
Besides, skin tones are probably his least concern considering his published work... wouldn't you think?
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
Everything you say is perfectly true, but my D4 experience has been so lousy that image quality may have influenced Scott's decision a bit if he was using a D4. To make a long story short, I will try to never buy a Nikon product again.
Edmund
-
Bernard,
Everything you say is perfectly true, but my D4 experience has been so lousy that image quality may have influenced Scott's decision a bit if he was using a D4. To make a long story short, I will try to never buy a Nikon product again.
Edmund,
I respect your point of view. I have never shot with a D4, I can't comment about it.
Thom Hogan is pretty neutral about it but doesn't describe it as worse than the D3s, which he describes as better than the D3 that I used to own and found outstanding. So I am a bit surprised by the "so lousy" strong comment, but again, I have no first hand experience.
It seems at least clear that the D4 isn't Nikon's most outstanding body ever. The good news is that odd numbers have all been revolutionary and that the D5 can't be that far away. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Let's be clear.
Scott Kelby was shooting Nikon when he was on Nikon's payroll, he is now shooting Canon because they wrote a bigger check.
Yes, let's be clear Bernard: you know nothing of why the man changed brands. Nothing.
Camera performance has absolutely zero to do with it. If it had this would be the worst timing ever to change, Nikon's full frame line up has objectively never been that clearly ahead.
Actually, your opinion has zero to do with anything.
The Canon's performance actually is ahead of Nikon, on many functional levels, with slightly less, but very comparable, resolution/DR/ISO.
More importantly, according to most, the Canon has better color rendition, is faster, scrolls easier, has more user-friendly features that are important to those who have to think/act fast, and don't have all day to tinker with their camera while shooting subjects that aren't moving.
Besides, skin tones are probably his least concern considering his published work... wouldn't you think?
Cheers,
Bernard
What I think, or you think, really doesn't matter. What matters is what the guy himself has to say.
I believe you've seen Kelby's video on his own website (http://scottkelby.com/2014/why-i-switched-to-canon), with the explaining his reasons himself.
I am pretty sure he directly stated his reasons: skin tone, speed, ease-of use, filing/tagging, etc. What more do you want?
It seems you have serious difficulty accepting the reality that some people really might prefer Canon, just as some people really might prefer Nikon.
I have heard people switching to Canon for their Tilt-shift lenses too.
Why is this so problematic for you?
Anyway, enough bickering, Happy Holidays :)
-
It is very simple:
When a photographer produces an outstanding image:
- if the camera is the same as yours, then it is because of the camera (of course)
- if the camera is different, then it is because of the talent of the photographer (in spite of having used an inferior camera)
When the photograph sucks:
- if the camera is the same as yours, then it is because of the lack of talent of the photographer
- if the camera is different, then it obviously was because of the camera
;D ;D ;D
Happy holidays and Merry Christmas!!
-
John,
I don't care the least bit who uses what. I'll buy Canon cameras the day they help me take better pictures at a price point I can afford taking into account my heavy investment in the F mount. Today I don't see how they would. Among the points you mention I clearly agree about the superiority of the Canon T/S lenses. The rest is... to put it kindly very subjective opinions, including the claimed color superiority.
All I am saying is that the odds that mr. Kelby picked Canon because of camera performance are about equal to those of you taking a sharp image of the Lochness monster dancing salsa on full moon summer night.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It is very simple:
When a photographer produces an outstanding image:
- if the camera is the same as yours, then it is because of the camera (of course)
- if the camera is different, then it is because of the talent of the photographer (in spite of having used an inferior camera)
When the photograph sucks:
- if the camera is the same as yours, then it is because of the lack of talent of the photographer
- if the camera is different, then it obviously was because of the camera
;D ;D ;D
Happy holidays and Merry Christmas!!
TRUTH here!
Merry Christmas to you too
-
It is very simple:
When a photographer produces an outstanding image:
- if the camera is the same as yours, then it is because of the camera (of course)
- if the camera is different, then it is because of the talent of the photographer (in spite of having used an inferior camera)
When the photograph sucks:
- if the camera is the same as yours, then it is because of the lack of talent of the photographer
- if the camera is different, then it obviously was because of the camera
;D ;D ;D
Happy holidays and Merry Christmas!!
:D
-
Equipment differences between brands and between models within a given brand can give you an edge in some situations, but the differences and their consequences are hugely exaggerated, especially in forums like this. You make a lot more difference than your camera ever could. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many great photos taken with low to mid-range cameras, nor would any great photos from more than a few years ago.
In the end the camera you use will never garner praise or condemnation of an image you create with it. That just doesn't happen. What people really see are things like subject matter, composition, and use of light and color. IMO most photographers would be far better off taking some fine art classes relating to those things in painting and applying it to their work than buying the latest "best" camera. Frankly, just visiting a good art museum and studying paintings you like to determine why you like them can be extremely beneficial. Technical aspects matter, but with few exceptions I think they are far from being the most important contributors to the success or failure of a photograph. The last time I checked, that's what actually matters.
Happy Holidays, and best wishes to all.
-
I might as well toss my 0.02c worth in here.
I have shot for several years with Canon equipment - most recently with 5D mark III's.
The 5D mark III is a very usable camera and exceptionally versatile.
I have also recently acquired a Sony A7r predominantly for landscape work.
In this application it absolutely excels providing me with exquisite image quality and jaw-dropping dynamic range, and certainly at base ISO is practically noiseless.
Nonetheless the Sony A7r has several dramatic weaknesses that practically exclude it from my other great loves of bird and wildlife photography. The autofocus is appalling, especially if using an adaptor to mount 3rd party lenses, such as my Canon lenses. However I have turned that problem into a virtue because with this camera I shoot almost exclusively from a tripod and I only use manual focus in setting up my shot. The various tool such as focus peaking and the focus magnifier are really helpful here. Admittedly in really low light it can be tough to get focus using an electronic viewfinder but not impossible.
Basically, neither camera is the perfect tool for all applications but appropriately used each camera helps to solve specific problems. Owning both these two cameras has expanded my creative potential. But it is just a potential help since none of equipment guarantees a good result. Although I delete a lot of images I am still in possession of a myriad of images that prove, beyond reasonable doubt, just how easy it can be to shoot complete rubbish with the best of equipment. The A7r is particularly unforgiving if a shot is not set up correctly.
In reality my incompetance and inattention limit my camera's ability to produce outstanding images rather than the camera limiting me. However, when I apply myself on a technical level and match that with good creative thinking either camera rewards me with beautiful striking images.
Merry Christmas!
Tony Jay
-
Bernard, the D3s is reconned to be the best of the bunch, and superior to its successor.
If you see one cheap, get it.
Edmund
-
Bernard, the D3s is reconned to be the best of the bunch, and superior to its successor.
If you see one cheap, get it.
The D3s is a great camera. But I don't like my D4 less than I liked the D3s. I don't know what happened with your D4 Edmund, but it doesn't match up with my experience. At base ISO, the D4 is fabulous, with much more DR than the D3s, more akin to the shadows on the D3x. I've used the D4 for a lot of extreme low light work (ISO25600+) and gotten better color response than I ever got from the D3s. The D3s was however a fine piece of kit that obliged in all the ways it was intended to.
-
The D3s is a great camera. But I don't like my D4 less than I liked the D3s. I don't know what happened with your D4 Edmund, but it doesn't match up with my experience. At base ISO, the D4 is fabulous, with much more DR than the D3s, more akin to the shadows on the D3x. I've used the D4 for a lot of extreme low light work (ISO25600+) and gotten better color response than I ever got from the D3s. The D3s was however a fine piece of kit that obliged in all the ways it was intended to.
I had a defective camera (everyone makes some of those) and a lot of Nikon service issues.
Nikon are now in the business of making money. Canon are in the business of business as usual.
I'll gladly swap my D4 and D3x together for a 1Dx, in fact I'll throw in a new 85/1.4 . The D3x was great -ask Bernard- and the D4 is whatever a D4 is supposed to be.
I think the Nikon gear is all going to go up for sale in January. I think I need video stuff more now than film gear, and my old Canon stuff can handle stills.
Edmund
-
Nikon are now in the business of making money. Canon are in the business of business as usual.
+1!
That really is the bottom line, Edmund.
-
It is very simple:
When a photographer produces an outstanding image:
- if the camera is the same as yours, then it is because of the camera (of course)
- if the camera is different, then it is because of the talent of the photographer (in spite of having used an inferior camera)
When the photograph sucks:
- if the camera is the same as yours, then it is because of the lack of talent of the photographer
- if the camera is different, then it obviously was because of the camera
;D ;D ;D
Happy holidays and Merry Christmas!!
LMBO! I know this was written in jest, but it is important to point out that any decent DSLR is capable of executing a Good Quality image in just about any situation. It is incumbent upon the photographer to know his camera and understand when a particular situation plays to a strength or weakness of it and adjust his technique accordingly.
Bottom line is in almost every situation, an image of quality that SUCKS, is the photographer's fault. I shoot the D810 and D7100. Neither is particularly speedy in frame rate. So when I shoot sports, for example, I know that neither the camera and usually the shutter speed I am able to use supports point and blast shooting. Any photographer using these cameras for fast motion subjects expecting to do so is failing their primary responsibility. So I must anticipate the moment and get it. While I shoot short bursts of 3-5 frames, it is almost always the initial frame in the burst which is the one I was after. Later frames sometimes show good reaction though.
What I like about these 2 cameras is that when I do my job correctly, they reward me with images of higher DR, better color depth and lower noise than most other camera options available in their sensor format FX (D810) and DX (D7100).
-
+1!
That really is the bottom line, Edmund.
Dear Eric,
This reminds me of the joke about Goldmann Sachs, who for a long time had as a company motto that they did extremely well by making money for their customers, until one day they decided they were just going to make money for themselves :)
Edmund
-
The D3x was great -ask Bernard
Yes, the D3x was great but it's so far behind the D810 it's not even funny.
The D3x was IMHO the first camera that made it possible to drastically reduce the usage of HDR techniques and was therefore a key milestone in the history of DSLRs. Unfortunately its high price point and bulky looks made it little appealing to many.
I am sure you would enjoy the 1Dx that appears to be an outstanding camera, but, at this point in time, why not wait for its successor?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, the D3x was great but it's so far behind the D810 it's not even funny.
The D3x was IMHO the first camera that made it possible to drastically reduce the usage of HDR techniques and was therefore a key milestone in the history of DSLRs. Unfortunately its high price point and bulky looks made it little appealing to many.
I am sure you would enjoy the 1Dx that appears to be an outstanding camera, but, at this point in time, why not wait for its successor?
Cheers,
Bernard
Sorry, no more expensive untested new gear for me.
At the moment my old stuff is more than enough, and I look forward to the used market :)
Edmund
Edmund
-
At the moment my old stuff is more than enough, and I look forward to the used market :)
+1 here. 2014 has been the first year I haven't bought any photographic hardware in over forty five years, all I've spent money on is film/ink/paper and one minor software upgrade.
The benefits of the latest 'cutting edge' kit are just too small to be worth the expense.
I've still shot lots of images I'm very happy with though.
-
+1 here. 2014 has been the first year I haven't bought any photographic hardware in over forty five years, all I've spent money on is film/ink/paper and one minor software upgrade.
The benefits of the latest 'cutting edge' kit are just too small to be worth the expense.
I've still shot lots of images I'm very happy with though.
Sure, but it still is fun to shoot with the latest stuff!
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7529/15925369377_02fe66a280_o.jpg)
This is a corrected version of the original image.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8662/15925367217_384b4e0527_o.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7526/15925366897_9fc58d7bc4_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
it still is fun to shoot with the latest stuff!
I'm over that now. It's just kit.
-
+1 here. 2014 has been the first year I haven't bought any photographic hardware in over forty five years, all I've spent money on is film/ink/paper and one minor software upgrade.
The benefits of the latest 'cutting edge' kit are just too small to be worth the expense.
I've still shot lots of images I'm very happy with though.
While I agree with this in principle, I would argue the 2nd point. I love to hold onto gear because the longer I work with it the better I become utilizing it.
But 2 cameras this year seem to stand out. The D810 and the 7DmkII. If you think of the D810 as a minor refresh to the D800e, you would be mistaken. It is better in dozens of ways that when all wrapped together make a camera that seriously could have been a D900. I almost bit on the D800 and am just giddy that I waited because I would not have been able to afford an upgrade. Anyone that owns a D800/D800e and cannot afford to upgrade should not try the D810. It will make you cry.
And while it is a relatively inexpensive, cropped sensor camera, that really doesn't improve the sensor much (1 stop DR at high ISOs only) it does pack a variety of functional improvements over the 7D. Least among these being the 65 all cross type sensor focus system and additional 2 fps.
-
While I agree with this in principle, I would argue the 2nd point.
You could try, but you'd need to come up with some more compelling reasons than....
65 all cross type sensor focus system and additional 2 fps.
I only ever use the centre focus point on my 5Dii and then over-ride manually if required, as for an "additional 2fps" ? I only ever use the camera on single shot mode anyway.
I'm sure some folk might find this sort of feature an advantage, but it's just gilding the lilly for most people. Are they really seeing that much better results from these sort of minor incremental improvements ? I don't think so.
-
You could try, but you'd need to come up with some more compelling reasons than....I only ever use the centre focus point on my 5Dii and then over-ride manually if required, as for an "additional 2fps" ? I only ever use the camera on single shot mode anyway.
I'm sure some folk might find this sort of feature an advantage, but it's just gilding the lilly for most people. Are they really seeing that much better results from these sort of minor incremental improvements ? I don't think so.
LMBO. Of the 2 cameras I listed, D810 and 7DmkII, you seem to have focused on the wrong camera considering your shooting style. As a Full Frame camera shooter without the need to for all out frame rate, the the D810 is a massive upgrade from the 5DmkIII. 36 vesus 22 megapixels, 3 EV more DR, higher color depth and significantly better high ISO performance.
I agree that the 7DmkII features are gilding the lily for probably 95% of all potential buyers, but for those that need the functionality it is a significant step up from the 7D. And for the rest of us, the much better image quality out of the D7100 at half the price would be the way to go.
-
massive upgrade from the 5DmkIII. 36 vesus 22 megapixels, 3 EV more DR, higher color depth and significantly better high ISO performance.
"Massive upgrade" ? You're falling for the hype of the numbers.
The real issue here is whether you'll get a better photo hanging on your wall from it.
Do you print huge prints of images taken in low light with massive dynamic range than needs to tonally compressed ? If so, you're in a very tiny minority of photographers.
-
"Massive upgrade" ? You're falling for the hype of the numbers.
The real issue here is whether you'll get a better photo hanging on your wall from it.
Do you print huge prints of images taken in low light with massive dynamic range than needs to tonally compressed ? If so, you're in a very tiny minority of photographers.
If you consider the 5DII and D810 to be similar in performance, then the good news is that you'll indeed never have to buy another camera, they will all be identical by definition, be it a next generation Canon. ;)
The same applies to lenses, where is "good enough"?
That does make sense if you adhere to the whole LoFi philosophy and/or never felt the need to shoot with negatives in the film days. Most photographers I know shooting weddings, natural light portraits, architecture/interior, landscape,... do feel the need for more DR. Actually, the only guys who don't are studio shooters working with controlled light (product, fashion,...).
Another question is how you view the, probably universal, quest of craftman to continuously improve the "quality" of their work?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If you consider the 5DII and D810 to be similar in performance
Looked at objectively there's not a huge a mount of difference in the end results for the majority of photographers.
I doubt if you go to an exhibition of good prints you'd be able to pick out one contemporary digital camera from another. When I go to shows like the travel photographer of the year etc. where all the prints are the same size, printed to the same standard. Seeing differences between digital cameras is effectively impossible.
You might see these sort of differences when there really are 'massive upgrades' eg when resolution does effectively double(ie megapixels squared) like from a canon 10D to a Canon 5Dii, but for the minor upgrades along the way that just add a few more megapixels, the odd stop or two of speed or DR it doesn't really make any significant difference to the end result.
the good news is that you'll indeed never have to buy another camera
Right now I'm old and objective enough to hope that might be the case. I'd rather spend money travelling and taking photos than just buying new kit. It's a mug's game being sucked into the marketer's hype.
Another question is how you view the, probably universal, quest of craftman to continuously improve the "quality" of their work?
It's never a simple 'can it be better ?' issue. The question is 'Is it worth upgrading ?'
This 'massive upgrade' from a 5Dii to a D810 would cost me in excess of £10k to change system, for a difference I'd hardly ever be aware of it ? it makes no sense.
-
Looked at objectively there's not a huge a mount of difference in the end results for the majority of photographers.
I doubt if you go to an exhibition of good prints you'd be able to pick out one contemporary digital camera from another. When I go to shows like the travel photographer of the year etc. where all the prints are the same size, printed to the same standard. Seeing differences between digital cameras is effectively impossible.
I was not trying to convince you to switch brand, the cost would indeed be very high. The differences would not be obvious if you print A3.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The differences would not be obvious if you print A3.
Which is pretty much my point.
Very, very few people actually make prints bigger than A3. A fair number of those that do make prints bigger than A3 don't need high resolution anyway because they're printed on low resolution materials like canvas.
-
Which is pretty much my point.
Very, very few people actually make prints bigger than A3. A fair number of those that do make prints bigger than A3 don't need high resolution anyway because they're printed on low resolution materials like canvas.
Agreed overall, but some canvas such as Lyve from Breathing Colors are able to reproduce very fine details.
I am looking as I write this at a 6 feet wide canvas print from a 250 megapixels file and people 1-2 kms away that are 2mm tall can very clearly be distinguished.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To add some fuel to the speculations, here (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdc.watch.impress.co.jp%2Fdocs%2Fspecial%2Fdcm_int_2014%2F20141224_681230.html&edit-text=) is a recent interview with the Senior Managing Director Image Communication Business Division, Maeda Masaya.
Although the automatic translation is pretty poor, it looks like Lens performance (including Image Stabilisation, weight reduction, and resistance to mechanical impact forces, etc.) is still high on the To-Do list for 2015 and foreseeable future (rather than rely on postprocessing). There is a new lens line(?) under development. There seems to be a preference for an optical viewfinder rather than an EVF, and electronic shutters are not quite where Canon wants their quality to be, or so it seems. Medium format does not seem to be on the list, because there is still alot of potential in the current sensor sizes, and it would require to manufacture a lot of new stuff anyway. There are also some suggestions that a high pixel count camera is in the works, but one never knows for sure with the Japanese (who have a had time to say no, and rather beat around the bush). I can't decipher whether Dynamic range is that important to Canon, who seem to also see a general slowdown in market acceptance of annual upgrades, which therefore might reduce their willingness to invest in that direction, who knows?
The article leaves me with more questions than clear answers, but I thought sharing it to be more useful than whining about the slow evolution.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Quote "the good news is that you'll indeed never have to buy another camera"
Right now I'm old and objective enough to hope that might be the case. I'd rather spend money travelling and taking photos than just buying new kit. It's a mug's game being sucked into the marketer's hype.
This is precisely why I bought the D810. It was the 1st full frame DSLR, in my price range, that I wouldn't mind having for an extended period of time. It's overall performance and functionality would be good enough. While the D700 is a great camera, I would not want that level of performance to be my STICKING point. And the D810 is currently cheaper ($2999) than the 5DmkIII ($3099)!
And there are some significant ways where D810 has changed how I shoot because of its capabilities. First, I shoot a lot of amateur sports. The D810 can shoot in a 1.2x (24MP) and 1.5x (15.6MP) crop modes. The 5DmkIII would be about 9.6MP in 1.5x crop mode. In the DX mode it shoots 6fps w/o the grip and 7fps with it. This is equivalent to the D7100 (also no OLPF so very sharp) I currently use and the D300 I used previously. I use the DK-17M 1.2x magnifying eyepiece so while the viewfinder is cropped, the eyepiece give most of that back. In addition, I can decide if 15.6MP is enough and gain a little DOF if I want for some images. Now I have one camera that can perform well at all the tasks I have. I haven't decided to sell the D7100 yet, but the D810 versatility makes that a viable option!
Second, I shoot a lot of multi-shot images. Not true panoramic, but 3-6 shot images. With previous cameras it was automatic to do this with the camera in vertical orientation to give enough vertical resolution, especially allowing for alignment and stitching losses around the outside. Not always the case with the D810. Now I make a decision on each case depending if it is something I might want to print super large or just large. I can execute in 2 to 3 landscape shots what might have taken 3 to 6 verticals previously. This is especially convenient with rapidly changing light conditions! It gives me the choice of more resolution or more efficient capture that I didn't have before.
Another thing I gained is the ability to do a lot more available light photography. While the D7100 sensor is better than the 5DmkII and most cropped sensor cameras, it really topped out at about 1600 ISO for my tastes. The D810 is usable for me out to 4800 and even 6400. I'm just not so quick to pick up the speedlights or even hook up the White Lightnings as I was with the D300 and even the D7100.
I don't care about people switching brands as I'm not a Nikon Fan Boy. I am very vocal of criticism of Nikon when they pull stupid like not releasing updates to the massively popular D300 or D700 for example. And I stuck with Nikon during a long drought where Canon was just out classing them. But there is a reason someone previously commented on the hallowed D810. After just a month or so with it, I am finding out just why it is hallowed. This thing is a massive step ahead of any other general use DSLR.
-
Sure, but it still is fun to shoot with the latest stuff!
*
*
*
Cheers,
Bernard
Honestly, there is nothing distinguishably excellent about those shots, Bernard, compared to what some other camera could have achieved.
The truth is, you could have got the exact-same qualitative results with just about any modern camera, and no one would know the difference.
In fact, 99.99% of all magazine cover shots, awarded photography, etc. were all taken with cameras that are "less than" what today's cameras are capable of.
I do think it's good that camera manufacturers continue to strive for improvements on their equipment, but the truth is any of today's top models/lens combos is capable of stellar shots ... and so to split hairs over DR etc. is a bit daft, really.
With the level of equipment today, being at the right place, at the right time, is going to be more important to a person's taking great images than "which" of today's top cameras he brought.
Jack
-
This 'massive upgrade' from a 5Dii to a D810 would cost me in excess of £10k to change system, for a difference I'd hardly ever be aware of it ? it makes no sense.
I agree.
In truth, the images Bernard typically posts from his hallowed D810 aren't anything that couldn't be duplicated with a D700 or a 5D MkIII.
I am sure there are certain situations where the qualitative difference might be noticeable, but in most of what Bernard posts I don't see the need for a D810 over anything else that is currently available.
-
Well, there is a difference in requirements for photographing objects with leaves as the background, where DR is never a problem, and landscape photography where high dynamic range is very much appreciated.
That is why ND Grads are very basic filters for landscape photography. They are especially useful for darkening skies. And they are used very frequently. Sony sensors like in the D810, are able to get a scene right without the use of those filters, as heir dynamic range covers it, most of the time.
Now you, Jack are very keen on nature photography, and dynamic range is obviously no the point where you feel your camera is lacking. For you AF, and fast usability is of much more importance.
That is not splitting hairs, but facts. Can't you live with the fact, that there are differences in systems, and at the given moment Canon is not on the lead in terms of sensor design? There is lots of guys here, who know a lot about sensors technology and you may find will a lot of post concerning the matter. Maybe, Canon will come up tomorrow with a new shining 50MP sensor which will satisfy those who demand more DR. But as of today there is none.
DR is not a virtue by its own by the way. But it gives you much better control over the RAW files during post production, without color noise like in the shadows of the present Canon line up.
This is what Diglloyd writes when testing the 5DMKIII:
Start Quote:
To see streaking pattern noise at ISO 100 is disturbing for a $3500 camera, but this example shows clearly that the Canon 5D Mark III made little progress in this regard over its predecessor.
Uniform grain-like noise is not objectionable. But any kind of pattern noise is disturbing, and greatly reduces the versatility of image making.
To have pattern/streaking noise at ISO 100 shows that the camera has poor quality electronics. Since the Canon 5DM3 costs $1000 more than the 5DM2 and has had 3 years for development of higher sensor quality, this is astonishing.
End Quote
Cheers
Jan
-
Well, there is a difference in requirements for photographing objects with leaves as the background, where DR is never a problem, and landscape photography where high dynamic range is very much appreciated.
In a few instances, the difference can be seen.
But in most, I think don't think so.
That is why ND Grads are very basic filters for landscape photography. They are especially useful for darkening skies. And they are used very frequently. Sony sensors like in the D810, are able to get a scene right without the use of those filters, as heir dynamic range covers it, most of the time.
That is a nice advancement, like I said, but is no reason to dump a camera system ... especially when using filters & bracketing is also possible.
Now you, Jack are very keen on nature photography, and dynamic range is obviously no the point where you feel your camera is lacking. For you AF, and fast usability is of much more importance.
Actually, with macro, I am needing ultimate resolution, which is why I am still considering the D810 ... but will be waiting until March/April to make my decision. I honestly don't use AF that much, but do sometimes. Ultimate resolution is what I am after ... yet I am constantly amazed by images posted by people with D300s, 7Ds, 5Ds, etc. I have seen some great images with the D810 also, as well as one person who just can't take good macro shots, even with a D810.
That is not splitting hairs, but facts. Can't you live with the fact, that there are differences in systems, and at the given moment Canon is not on the lead in terms of sensor design? There is lots of guys here, who know a lot about sensors technology and you may find will a lot of post concerning the matter. Maybe, Canon will come up tomorrow with a new shining 50MP sensor which will satisfy those who demand more DR. But as of today there is none.
Well, speaking of "splitting hairs," this guy takes ultra-close macro images (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ectemnius/with/15900827297) with the lowly 7D that do just that. Maybe the images might be a tad better with a D810, but they are still amazing with the (outdated) equipment the guy is using right now. Does he really need to run out and buy "another camera" to make his images "more amazing" ??? ::)
I don't think so.
This is what Diglloyd writes when testing the 5DMKIII:
To see streaking pattern noise at ISO 100 is disturbing for a $3500 camera, but this example shows clearly that the Canon 5D Mark III made little progress in this regard over its predecessor.
Uniform grain-like noise is not objectionable. But any kind of pattern noise is disturbing, and greatly reduces the versatility of image making.
To have pattern/streaking noise at ISO 100 shows that the camera has poor quality electronics. Since the Canon 5DM3 costs $1000 more than the 5DM2 and has had 3 years for development of higher sensor quality, this is astonishing.
Cheers
Honestly, I never really thought much of Diglloyd's reviews. I remember one article where he said that the Micro-Nikkor 200 "couldn't have" good bokeh because it's only f/4, when most consider the lens to have stellar bokeh. I know what he meant, but there is more to exceptional bokeh than just the ability to get down to f/2.0, and the fact he didn't even test it (but just "surmised" it) really was a turnoff as to the credibility of the review.
Finally, his Nikon-biased opinion of the Canon 5D Mark III apparently doesn't hamper the creative beauty of people who actually make their living creating stellar images, like Art Wolfe (http://artwolfe.com/showcase) :D
Reading Diglloyd's review, one wouldn't think that possible.
The fact that many talented photographers actually use the 5D MkIII in the real world, and to beautiful effect, pretty much debunks the article ...
Like I said, with the level ALL top cameras are able to achieve these days, I think being at these "right places" at "the right time" has more of an affect on great imagery than "which modern high-end camera" you happened to bring.
Jack
-
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7529/15925369377_8b30d60071_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, they don't get it! I know the DR this scene encompasses and even on a D810 this was tough. Take 3 EV away and the shadows are totally blocked up. Even with close to 15EV at base ISO, I would ask for 3 EV more to be totally happy!
Focus Stacking and Tilts are 2 ways to get large DoF. While there are times you can use either, there are times that only one will work. Same with high DR and exposure bracketing. Sometimes, it isn't possible to bracket and merge exposures. And I do both focus stacking and exposure stacking. The following highly stylized image (Photomatix) shot with D7100. The later images when the sun was peaking over the horizon lost all detail in the shadows. Could have used a few more EV of DR!!!
-
Honestly, there is nothing distinguishably excellent about those shots, Bernard, compared to what some other camera could have achieved.
I don't remember mentioning these images as demonstrating any particular aspect of the D810's performance, did I? I thought my comment was about having fun with the latest equipement?
But since you ask, all 3 images are in fact pretty remarquable technically for different reasons:
- the first image is mostly lens related in terms of lack of CA on very high contrast edges which is an essential component of the clean and fresh look of this image. Flare mgt (lens performance and technique combined) is also pretty decent when you think that I could hardly look at the scene because of how blindenigly bright it was, my own eyes were flaring like hell. That was shot with an Otus,
- the second image is IMHO a decent example of technique (stitching and depth of field stacking combined) applied at -15c. In terms of equipment, the remarkable sharpness results from the combination of sensor, camera support and outstanding lens (a Leica 180mm f2.8 APO in this case). That does make a clear difference in decent print sizes,
- the 3rd image is a 300 megapixel stitch that obviously shines in terms of DR. Shadows are clean in the very deep shadow of the valley compared to the bright sky around mt Fuji. The eye could hardly distinguish anything there, yet the very concept of this image relies on the depth of the foreground valley and about the ability of equipment to capture this cleanly, as I am sure you have realized.
The truth is, you could have got the exact-same qualitative results with just about any modern camera, and no one would know the difference.
I believe that this is not the case as explained above, and IMHO, it doesn't take much experience of this type of photography to understand why.
Do you have any similar images to share that would give some credit to your claims to the contrary?
In fact, 99.99% of all magazine cover shots, awarded photography, etc. were all taken with cameras that are "less than" what today's cameras are capable of.
Yes, so what? Is your goal in photography to reach a level of technical quality sufficient not to be rejected from magazine cover pages process due to technical issues?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't remember mentioning these images as demonstrating any particular aspect of the D810's performance, did I? I thought my comment was about having fun with the latest equipement?
So does that mean one can't go out there and have fun with the equipment he bought a few years ago? ???
But since you ask, all 3 images are in fact pretty remarquable technically for different reasons:
- the first image is mostly lens related in terms of lack of CA on very high contrast edges which is an essential component of the clean and fresh look of this image. Flare mgt (lens performance and technique combined) is also pretty decent when you think that I could hardly look at the scene because of how blindenigly bright it was, my own eyes were flaring like hell. That was shot with an Otus,
- the second image is IMHO a decent example of technique (stitching and depth of field stacking combined) applied at -15c. In terms of equipment, the remarkable sharpness results from the combination of sensor, camera support and outstanding lens (a Leica 180mm f2.8 APO in this case). That does make a clear difference in decent print sizes,
- the 3rd image is a 300 megapixel stitch that obviously shines in terms of DR. Shadows are clean in the very deep shadow of the valley compared to the bright sky around mt Fuji. The eye could hardly distinguish anything there, yet the very concept of this image relies on the depth of the foreground valley and about the ability of equipment to capture this cleanly, as I am sure you have realized.
I like the first image the best; the second does nothing for me; and, while the third is kind of dark for my taste, I like it okay too.
Not sure if any of them compares to most of the landscape shots I saw on Art Wolfe's site, however, that I linked to, but I guess that would be my subjective opinion.
I understand that maybe you can pull more detail out of the shadows, but sometimes shadows are fine without a lot of detail. In fact, all your talk about resolution, sensors, stitching, etc. reminds me of a quote of a famous photographer: "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."
I still maintain that a great photographer doesn't need to always have the latest camera to take great images, what he has (that most don't) is a great eye for what to capture. Conversely, I also maintain that the latest camera focused on ho-hum subjects will still produce only produce ho-hum images.
I believe that this is not the case as explained above, and IMHO, it doesn't take much experience of this type of photography to understand why.
Do you have any similar images to share that would give some credit to your claims to the contrary?
Not really. Yours and my photography are totally different, so I think it's hard for either of us to appreciate the other's efforts. Here are the kinds of shots I like to take:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/jumper.jpg)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/anole.jpg)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/atala.jpg)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/swallotail.jpg)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/mantid.jpg)
Yes, so what? Is your goal in photography to reach a level of technical quality sufficient not to be rejected from magazine cover pages process due to technical issues?
Cheers,
Bernard
That was rather harshly-put :D
No, my goal is to capture images of the interesting subjects I find in nature.
I do want to maximize the detail, and to capture the vivid colors in (hopefully) optimal light ... but not to the point I can't sleep over it.
I don't really do it for sale but just for my enjoyment ... a perpetual "Easter egg hunt" in nature for me :D
Jack
-
This thread started with a question:
I was once an avid follower of this site but have been in the 3rd world for several years and dropped out. Michael was once an avid Canon user. From what I gather not so much now. Why? Has the brand fallen that far behind?
dr b
The simple answer to this question is yes. That does not mean great images cannot be made with Canon cameras or older cameras of all makes in general, but the quality ceiling keeps going up which allows better images, different images and more image making options. Nice images by the way!
No, my goal is to capture images of the interesting subjects I find in nature.
I do want to maximize the detail, and to capture the vivid colors in (hopefully) optimal light ... but not to the point I can't sleep over it.
Given your goals of maximizing detail and capturing colors, then all else being equal, the D810 would be the recommended full frame DSLR for you (can't comment on Sony A7R). The D7100 would be the best crop sensor option. Both have best in class pixel density for capturing detail and DR and color depth for vivid colors. Both also do not have a OLPF so with proper technique are sharper than other cameras.
But nobody would serious recommend an amateur dump say $10,000 worth of lenses and accessories just to use one of these 2 cameras. Nor, if one could not afford to upgrade, would anyone say, oh quit making images because you just don't have the best tool for the job. For amateurs like us, it is a lifetime investment and we typically ride out the lows and enjoy the highs and keep making images that we enjoy. Only when we believe the long term trend isn't going to improve should we consider switching and making the investment that entails. Professionals have a little different calculus and are likely to pull that trigger much quicker.
And I will quote and agree with Erik when he said something to the effect of I find most equipment outperforms it user!
-
Regardless of ability (or camera for that matter), there is the matter of what technique one can or cannot use successfully with a given camera, and how much that matters to one.
If you have a style that depends upon the ability to lift shadows at base ISO, then you would want a sensor that would facilitate that. There are lots of artistic reasons why one might want to do this. One might want to shoot people in open sun without fill flash plus assistants plus modifiers plus stands. One might want to do an indoor-outdoor shot where one wants to have detail revealed on the inside part. One might prefer an "illustration" style where the shadows are compressed into the mid-tones. And you want all of these things to be clean.
All of these things may involve lifting the shadows selectively one or two stops, or even more. You can do this on a Sony sensor, which is optimized for noise at base ISO, and /mostly/ "ISO-less". You cannot do this on most Canons without revealing ugly pattern noise. And this is one reason why Canon is judged to be "behind".
If you do not do any of the things that reveal pattern noise, then the Canon has many things to recommend it, including advanced AF and an excellent lens selection, and a pretty look to its images.
At the APS-c level, I'm keeping a close watch on Samsung with its NX-1. This should keep us engaged until Fossum's Quanta Image Sensor gets built.
-
This has become a little like driving slow past a bad car wreck, gawking to see if any of the bodies are still at the scene. I keep thinking I'm finished reading this thread, but then I drive around the block and look again. ::)
-
Mantis: Mr. de Koerner, I am ready for my close-up......
That's a very enjoyable set of close-up and macro photos, John. Clearly you get what you want from your camera. You found a fetching little jumping spider with the bright orange head - I haven't seen one like this in the Midwest USA.
dwswager said a mouthful when he said that equipment often outperforms its users. I have been weeding out some forgotten files from 2011, and I have realized that I am getting far better photos from that camera (a Canon 60D) in 2014 than I did in 2011 - same lenses used.
Bernard, that's a luscious snow scene. I can't comment on the inferior nature of the Canon sensor at capturing the necessary DR - because I don't have the necessary SNOW. 3 degrees C and drizzling here. Have a happy New Year's everybody.
-
And I will quote and agree with Erik when he said something to the effect of I find most equipment outperforms it user!
I believe this is true, especially for most with the D810.
One fellow I remember seeing, Jim Daly (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jaydaley/with/16098196266), really had some impressive images with the D810 and chose subjects that I feel really maximized its potential. (He also uses a Sony.)
Yet still, there is another fellow, Tomas Rak (https://www.flickr.com/photos/29369066@N05/with/8311245867), who with just the old 40D and the original 5D can put out some equally-colorful images, that I've not seen anyone with a D810 be able to get close to (macro-wise).
Thus again, a person's acquired skill at lighting, post-processing, and just being at the right place at the right time, all seem to have more bearing on the impact of the final image than which camera a person decided to bring (and whether there was +2 EV or not).
Anyway, have a good night.
Jack
PS: Thanks Nancy. I am still learning. And I agree, I think just the continued acquisition of experience will serve me better than continuously upgrading cameras. I plan on making one upgrade and probably won't again for another 5 years.
-
Technical quality is completely different from aesthetic quality. Technical quality is equipment-limited, while asthetic quality is user-limited.
Better equipment doesn't make your photos any better. But it makes previously-impossible photos possible, and technically difficult and/or situational photos much less so.
This only makes a difference if you're shooting at the boundaries of technical capability. If you use a tripod or don't shoot in low light, you won't get anything out of improved high ISO (except where this flows back to low-ISO DR). If you shoot live music, every extra stop of ISO is gold. If you don't shoot action, better AF won't help you. If you shoot mainly in low-contrast situations, extra DR won't help you. If you're constantly pushing the DR boundaries, every extra stop makes previously impossible shots possible and greatly cuts down on the need for filters. If you don't print large, extra resolution won't help you. If you own a large-format printer, every extra pixel is invaluable.
It's a bit like print gamut. Extra colour gamut is always a good thing. If you print rich, saturated images, it will help you greatly. But if you shoot in monochrome, it won't help you at all. But that doesn't make it useless, and doesn't make it a bad thing to have - having the extra gamut doesn't make your monochrome prints any worse.
-
While I agree with this in principle, I would argue the 2nd point. I love to hold onto gear because the longer I work with it the better I become utilizing it.
But 2 cameras this year seem to stand out. The D810 and the 7DmkII. If you think of the D810 as a minor refresh to the D800e, you would be mistaken. It is better in dozens of ways that when all wrapped together make a camera that seriously could have been a D900. I almost bit on the D800 and am just giddy that I waited because I would not have been able to afford an upgrade. Anyone that owns a D800/D800e and cannot afford to upgrade should not try the D810. It will make you cry.
And while it is a relatively inexpensive, cropped sensor camera, that really doesn't improve the sensor much (1 stop DR at high ISOs only) it does pack a variety of functional improvements over the 7D. Least among these being the 65 all cross type sensor focus system and additional 2 fps.
I totally agree with you about the D810. I plan to sell my D800E.
In my opinion disregarding the D810 is easy if you just look at specs without trying it. I find this camera to match the Canon 5D mkIII for all other aspects except the sensor and possibly an edge to the D810 wrt. the autofocus. I tried some portraits using continous autofocus and 3D and it was absolutely amazing how the AF system cloud match the focus I intended despite movements of the model.
I think a lot of opinions on different cameras and systems are made by people who have not even shot a single picture with the particular systems. Sadly enough this applies also the reviews on this site.
-
I loved Canon when they invented AF that worked (film EOS-1) and zoom lenses in exciting ranges (20-35mm!!), and when they revolutionized photography with the 1Ds as the first pro-level 35mm digital. But that's 13 years ago, and they haven't done a thing since that, to me, was of real interest.
As digital marched forward, the lenses that were ok for film turned out to be complete crap. Their core zooms (24-70, 100-400mm, etc.) were just awful for anyone used to something like a Mamiya 6 or Leica/Contax in the film days. So I left and have never looked back.
Now, it remains true that Canon may be the best system when getting the image is all important, and image quality is, at best, a far secondary concern --> ie: hardcore journalism. The pro-level 1-cameras, I am told, still stand up terrifically well, and optical quality is largely an academic issue in that realm. So white lenses at sporting events, and red lines at car crashes and car bombs make perfect sense. But for the recreational market, I'm completely unsure why people 'go there', other than having an install-base of lenses and clever marketing.
Being so far removed from Canon for so long, my question is this: have they actually improved the optical quality of their lenses? I know the TSE glass is considered outstanding and used cross-platform by many, and the long fixed teles have always been good, but in the core of their system have the got glass that actually does justice to even their whopping 24MP cameras, to say nothing of something double that?
- N.
-
I think a lot of opinions on different cameras and systems are made by people who have not even shot a single picture with the particular systems. Sadly enough this applies also the reviews on this site.
Hans, the first sentence is undoubtedly true. But what exactly do you mean by the second?
- N.
-
I loved Canon when they invented AF that worked (film EOS-1) and zoom lenses in exciting ranges (20-35mm!!), and when they revolutionized photography with the 1Ds as the first pro-level 35mm digital. But that's 13 years ago, and they haven't done a thing since that, to me, was of real interest.
As digital marched forward, the lenses that were ok for film turned out to be complete crap. Their core zooms (24-70, 100-400mm, etc.) were just awful for anyone used to something like a Mamiya 6 or Leica/Contax in the film days. So I left and have never looked back.
Now, it remains true that Canon may be the best system when getting the image is all important, and image quality is, at best, a far secondary concern --> ie: hardcore journalism. The pro-level 1-cameras, I am told, still stand up terrifically well, and optical quality is largely an academic issue in that realm. So white lenses at sporting events, and red lines at car crashes and car bombs make perfect sense. But for the recreational market, I'm completely unsure why people 'go there', other than having an install-base of lenses and clever marketing.
Being so far removed from Canon for so long, my question is this: have they actually improved the optical quality of their lenses? I know the TSE glass is considered outstanding and used cross-platform by many, and the long fixed teles have always been good, but in the core of their system have the got glass that actually does justice to even their whopping 24MP cameras, to say nothing of something double that?
- N.
Nick,
With all due respect why not doing your homework and find reviews of the lenses that Canon has released in the last couple of years. Truly state of the art lenses. I shoot both Canon 5D mkIII and Nikon and really wish I had the Canon lenses on the Nikon body, especially the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II which is amazing. If you don't exceed the DR of the Canon sensor the IQ really good. But how could you know? ;D
-
Hans, the first sentence is undoubtedly true. But what exactly do you mean by the second?
- N.
It seems quite clear to me that this is the case.
-
that's 13 years ago, and they haven't done a thing since that, to me, was of real interest.
It might not have been of interest to you, but the 5Dii created a whole new genre of hybrid still/video cameras and started an entire sub-industry from it's introduction. The impact of the 5Dii in the video production industry can't be over exaggerated.
Given that, unexpected and unplanned, success; it's no surprise to see Canon move into it and grab a big share by developing the C series cameras that have again carved themselves a huge following.
This market has really proved a big success for Canon and it's easy to see why playing 'feature ping pong' with Nikon still cameras has taken a back seat whilst they concentrate on lucrative new opportunities, but they'll be playing again next year.
-
really wish I had the Canon lenses on the Nikon body.
1+
-
Being so far removed from Canon for so long, my question is this: have they actually improved the optical quality of their lenses? I know the TSE glass is considered outstanding and used cross-platform by many, and the long fixed teles have always been good, but in the core of their system have the got glass that actually does justice to even their whopping 24MP cameras, to say nothing of something double that?
Hi Nick,
Canon have continuously improved their lenses, also because of digital sensors. Those are many of the type II lenses. Even a number of lenses from the analog days do perform very well on digital systems. The interesting thing is that Canon also continued to improve lenses that were already very good on digital systems, as if they were preparing for even more demanding things to come in the digital arena.
An issue with Canon is that their sensor production equipment (wafer steppers (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/semiconductor/products/semiconductor_equipment/steppers) etc., which they use(d) to produce their own high-end CMOS devices) has not kept up pace with other manufacturers' production equipment with regards to resolution. Competitors can produce smaller feature sizes, which helps with producing more densely packed designs. So currently, it seems, Canon would have to contract outside manufacturers of such equipment or purchase finished products from competitors (I believe they already purchase Sony sensors for their compact camera range for a while).
Another issue, for stills photographers, is that Canon decided some years ago to focus more on the motion imaging side of the market. That segment also needs outstanding 'digital' lens designs, but less resolution. Maybe their senior management has by now come to realize that the economical situation, combined with demographic developments, means that they are missing opportunities to have younger people join the Canon users population, which will negatively impact their lens sales potential in the longer run.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Being so far removed from Canon for so long, my question is this: have they actually improved the optical quality of their lenses? I know the TSE glass is considered outstanding and used cross-platform by many, and the long fixed teles have always been good, but in the core of their system have the got glass that actually does justice to even their whopping 24MP cameras, to say nothing of something double that?
- N.
You could e.g. study this http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Which-lenses-should-you-choose-for-your-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs.-Nikon-D800-Competition-is-closer-than-expected
See attached DxO measurements on the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and see that compared to the Tamron which is a well regarded 70-200 lens
See also http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-ii-usm/5
-
Sure, but it still is fun to shoot with the latest stuff!
Bernard, what is that pink spot? An early cherry-blossom? Trees blushing in the presence of mighty Nikon? ;)
-
You could e.g. study this http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Which-lenses-should-you-choose-for-your-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs.-Nikon-D800-Competition-is-closer-than-expected
See attached DxO measurements on the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and see that compared to the Tamron which is a well regarded 70-200 lens
See also http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-ii-usm/5
While it is nice to know that the D810 still outperforms even with the smaller, cheaper ($1399) AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 VR than the 5DmkIII with the $2199 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens, I think the link and attached screen shot is what you were intending to post.
DxOMark comparison Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED IF VRII (http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-70-200mm-F28-G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D810___408_795_406_963)
-
... even with the smaller, cheaper ...
Which is to be expected. Not because it is "smaller and cheaper" but because it is a slower lens (f/4), i.e., easier to optically correct.
-
Bernard, what is that pink spot? An early cherry-blossom? Trees blushing in the presence of mighty Nikon? ;)
Slobodan, I was waiting for how long it would take for anybody to notice. I thought it was staring in my eyes when I saw the shot ;D
-
It might not have been of interest to you, but the 5Dii created a whole new genre of hybrid still/video cameras and started an entire sub-industry from it's introduction. The impact of the 5Dii in the video production industry can't be over exaggerated.
The first EOS 5D was also a landmark camera for its time - the first affordable (*) full-frame dSLR.
(*) It wasn't cheap at ~ $3000.
-
Very well said. :)
Hi Nick,
Canon have continuously improved their lenses, also because of digital sensors. Those are many of the type II lenses. Even a number of lenses from the analog days do perform very well on digital systems. The interesting thing is that Canon also continued to improve lenses that were already very good on digital systems, as if they were preparing for even more demanding things to come in the digital arena.
An issue with Canon is that their sensor production equipment (wafer steppers (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/semiconductor/products/semiconductor_equipment/steppers) etc., which they use(d) to produce their own high-end CMOS devices) has not kept up pace with other manufacturers' production equipment with regards to resolution. Competitors can produce smaller feature sizes, which helps with producing more densely packed designs. So currently, it seems, Canon would have to contract outside manufacturers of such equipment or purchase finished products from competitors (I believe they already purchase Sony sensors for their compact camera range for a while).
Another issue, for stills photographers, is that Canon decided some years ago to focus more on the motion imaging side of the market. That segment also needs outstanding 'digital' lens designs, but less resolution. Maybe their senior management has by now come to realize that the economical situation, combined with demographic developments, means that they are missing opportunities to have younger people join the Canon users population, which will negatively impact their lens sales potential in the longer run.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well, I have to thank Canon. Since I have practically stopped investing in Canon gear for the last 3 years, I had finally (in digital times) the means to start exploring other gear.
Now I own a Sony A6000 converted to IR and a RX100M3. I love them both. Especially the RX.
Thanks Canon!
Eduardo
-
I love the D810 as it does give me extra dynamic range when it really counts. But now this is about Canon and most situations can be shot with a Canon 5D mkIII as I have in my bag. Here are some examples that are single RAW files processed entirely in Lightroom 5:
http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Dolomites/i-dq78srh/A
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Dolomites/i-dq78srh/1/L/140930-075326-125CanonCanon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III083024004433-L.jpg)
http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Dolomites/i-WC4pMTw/A
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Dolomites/i-WC4pMTw/0/L/140930-082417-277CanonCanon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III083024004433-L.jpg)
http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Dolomites/i-v853vtZ/A
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Dolomites/i-v853vtZ/0/L/141002-092636-28CanonCanon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III083024004433-L.jpg)
And here is one with the D810 that the Canon could never do in a single RAW file
http://hanskrusephotography.zenfolio.com/p63207269/h3251600E#h3251600e
-
Slobodan, I was waiting for how long it would take for anybody to notice. I thought it was staring in my eyes when I saw the shot ;D
+1 ;)
Thierry
-
I really the first two Hans (and most of your other work I've seen), but..
And here is one with the D810 that the Canon could never do in a single RAW file
I think the shot would look a lot better with LESS DR. The detail in the tree in the foreground just looks totally wrong when the rest of the scene is so strongly backlit. It looks like you've used a flash on it and seems unnatural to me.
-
I really the first two Hans (and most of your other work I've seen), but..I think the shot would look a lot better with LESS DR. The detail in the tree in the foreground just looks totally wrong when the rest of the scene is so strongly backlit. It looks like you've used a flash on it and seems unnatural to me.
The last one from the Canon with too much DR ;D However I do not agree with you that it looks totally wrong. If you had been with me sitting where I took the shot you would have realized that there was quite a lot of light on the foreground and looking at the area around the tree was not black as it was from the default conversion in Lightroom. That actually would look totally wrong.
Yes, this is a matter of taste. I liked it this way when I processed it. I may come back later and make slight less light around the tree. Sometimes I do. But the point was about how much DR the Canon has with no problem.
-
I really the first two Hans (and most of your other work I've seen), but..I think the shot would look a lot better with LESS DR. The detail in the tree in the foreground just looks totally wrong when the rest of the scene is so strongly backlit. It looks like you've used a flash on it and seems unnatural to me.
BAHAHAH
It is fine to 'like' a different look from what is presented. Everyone gets an opinion. But when you say it looks wrong, what you are really saying is that it looks different than what you are used to seeing in similar photographs. Slide film held about 6 stops, print film about 10 or so. DSLRs started down at the 5-6 stop range. The D810, depending on ISO captures over 14. So yeah, we can now make images unlike we used to be able to make with other cameras. Of course, this is all affected by the limitations of the output medium. Oh, and we still get to silhouette objects for artistic reasons, but with the D810 it is a choice, not always a requirement.
The Human eye is believed to have a DR of about 11-14 stops, and because we can scan and adjust basically it does HDR in your head. So that last shot is approximating what the human eye would see.
BTW, Hans, very nice. I have to admit that I looked at all the images and and liked the last one best. Though the 2nd one is really nice and would just be better with a little more detail in the tree and other shadows. Then I went back and read the post before I figured out the last one was actually from the D810.
-
He he he, the pink spot, I am glad some of you noticed! In fact I am shocked nobody raised it earlier. ;)
That's the result of remaining flare that I still need to correct.
It results from a very specific issue with the D810 that occurs when a strong light source is positioned at a certain location above the camera. It is rare but did affect one of the images of this stitch. I managed to correct most of the luminosity issue, but introduced a color shift that I had not noticed when I processed the image after a very long day. Stupid me had somehow forgotten to switch the adjustment layers to luminosity mode...
Btw, nice images Hans. The first one in particular works very well.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It seems quite clear to me that this is the case.
You would be so fun to have under cross-examination. And thank you for reminding me why this forum isn't worth another single waking moment of my life.
- N.
-
But when you say it looks wrong, what you are really saying is that it looks different than what you are used to seeing in similar photographs.
No, don't extrapolate unnecessarily. It looks wrong to me, unnatural, simple as that. Not compared to any other photograph, but as I expect reality to look like.
The Human eye is believed to have a DR of about 11-14 stops,
Got a source for that assumption ?
and because we can scan and adjust basically it does HDR in your head. So that last shot is approximating what the human eye would see.
That's a gross simplification of how people perceive images. I also think it's fundamentally flawed too.
-
You would be so fun to have under cross-examination. And thank you for reminding me why this forum isn't worth another single waking moment of my life.
- N.
Please, don't let Hans's attitude drive you away Nick. :)
Your contributions are an order of magnitude more valuable to me and your civil tone is always a pleasure to read.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No, don't extrapolate unnecessarily. It looks wrong to me, unnatural, simple as that. Not compared to any other photograph, but as I expect reality to look like.Got a source for that assumption ?That's a gross simplification of how people perceive images. I also think it's fundamentally flawed too.
Here is one link. (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm) And your eye really does change exposure based on where your eye is focusing in the real scene. And I wasn't talking about perceiving images, but perceiving the real world.
This attached cambridgeincolour.com pictorial is a pretty good graphical representation of what you eye/brain does when looking at high contrast scenes:
As an amateur photographer with over 32 years experience, I get a lot of requests for technique and equipment recommendations. I've been shooting Nikon since switching from Canon in 1989. And until the last 3-4 years, most of my recommendations leaned people toward Canon if they had no prior commitment to a particular brand. For most people, the systems are fairly comparable, but Canon cameras were just better. I even thought of switching back to Canon 7 years ago. So I find all the upset somewhat baffling.
-
Please, don't let Hans's attitude drive you away Nick. :)
Your contributions are an order of magnitude more valuable to me and your civil tone is always a pleasure to read.
Cheers,
Bernard
+1
I always find your comments very informative and refreshing to read.
-
Sometimes you look at somebody's pictures and wonder "how does he do it"?
That's how I feel when I see Hans Kruse's site.
Edmund
-
Hi,
Having spent some days on a workshop with Hans I would suggest some other factors:
- Researching the areas where he is shooting
- Very early mornings and late evening, when there is that magic light
- Knowledge and experience
- A consistent style
- Good understanding of the the tools of the trade
And yes, some talent is involved, too!
Best regards
Erik
Talent, perhaps?
-
Hi,
As a bystander I would say that Canon makes some very nice optics. Many of the L lenses were famous. Canon had some weak offerings in the 16-35 area, but that has been cured by the 16-35/4 and the 24-70/2.8LII is well known to be excellent and so are the 17 and 24 T&S lenses.
Where I feel Canon is lacking is the base ISO high resolution area, where they can not match the clean shadows of the Sony sensors used by Nikon and others. They also lack a high resolution full frame body.
What I would say Hans Kruse's examples show is that excellent results are achievable with Canon. I would also say that 20+ MP is good enough for A2 size prints, printing larger I would expect some benefits from higher resolution bodies.
Anyway, post processing technique matters a lot. I would guess that a well executed and processed 20+ MP image from Canon cameras can impress even in large sizes.
Subject and interpretation matters mostly more than technical quality.
BTW, not everyone uses tripod and low ISO. With high ISOs the DR advantage of the Sony sensors is probably mostly gone.
Best regards
Erik
-
While it is nice to know that the D810 still outperforms even with the smaller, cheaper ($1399) AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 VR than the 5DmkIII with the $2199 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens, I think the link and attached screen shot is what you were intending to post.
DxOMark comparison Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED IF VRII (http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-70-200mm-F28-G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D810___408_795_406_963)
It was on purpose that I included the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR since this is the best performing Nikon 70-200. It was about price since clearly an f/2.8 lens is more expensive than an f/4 lens. Canon has a similar lens that is slightly less performing than the f/2.8.
If you look at the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII on the D3X which is 24MP and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II on the 22.8MP 5D mkIII you will see the difference in lens quality
-
Hi,
As a bystander I would say that Canon makes some very nice optics. Many of the L lenses were famous. Canon had some weak offerings in the 16-35 area, but that has been cured by the 16-35/4 and the 24-70/2.8LII is well known to be excellent and so are the 17 and 24 T&S lenses.
Where I feel Canon is lacking is the base ISO high resolution area, where they can not match the clean shadows of the Sony sensors used by Nikon and others. They also lack a high resolution full frame body.
What I would say Hans Kruse's examples show is that excellent results are achievable with Canon. I would also say that 20+ MP is good enough for A2 size prints, printing larger I would expect some benefits from higher resolution bodies.
Anyway, post processing technique matters a lot. I would guess that a well executed and processed 20+ MP image from Canon cameras can impress even in large sizes.
Subject and interpretation matters mostly more than technical quality.
BTW, not everyone uses tripod and low ISO. With high ISOs the DR advantage of the Sony sensors is probably mostly gone.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Erik,
That's a nice summary of the Canon situation. As you know I shoot both the Canon and Nikon system and I do grab the D810 more and more in the extreme situations, but in other situations I'm very happy with what comes from the Canon files. I prefer the handling of the Canon although the Nikon works fine. I generally find the Nikon system more convoluted in the design. But I agree that Canon should come out with a higher resolution camera that also handles the low ISO well.
-
Please, don't let Hans's attitude drive you away Nick. :)
Your contributions are an order of magnitude more valuable to me and your civil tone is always a pleasure to read.
Cheers,
Bernard
Wow ???
-
Wow ???
Hahahaha - we still love you, Hans ;D
-
You would be so fun to have under cross-examination. And thank you for reminding me why this forum isn't worth another single waking moment of my life.
- N.
Nick,
This site has turned into not only being Canon bashing but lately also Nikon. I have no problem with reviews that criticize vendors for their products and the functions, price etc. But to do so without good reasoning is just in my opinion not productive for anybody. What I do not like at all is general statements that are not only incorrect but also done without even unpacking products from the given vendor. I cannot remember when the last review of a Canon EOS product was done on this site. I believe the last camerabody review was the 1Ds mkIII done by Michael in 2007. The choice not to review Canon EOS products is entirely up to LuLa, but I would then expect that comparisons to Canon products are not made.
And btw. I was not referring to your reviews...
-
Hahahaha - we still love you, Hans ;D
You saved my day, Jeremy ;D
-
BTW, Hans, very nice. I have to admit that I looked at all the images and and liked the last one best. Though the 2nd one is really nice and would just be better with a little more detail in the tree and other shadows. Then I went back and read the post before I figured out the last one was actually from the D810.
Thanks, I agree a little less contrast in the shadows would not hurt at all. But I liked to have the tree standing as a silhouette.
The last one taken with the D810 is this one
http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Selected-Landscape-Gallery/i-Ck9vLTT/A
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Selected-Landscape-Gallery/i-Ck9vLTT/0/L/DSC_8825-L.jpg)
The following one is also shot with the 5D mkIII
http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Selected-Landscape-Gallery/i-Frqv4JH/A
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Selected-Landscape-Gallery/i-Frqv4JH/2/L/_B3A5717-L.jpg)
And the following with the D800E and the Sigma 24-105 f/4
http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Selected-Landscape-Gallery/i-PtbqWkR/A
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Selected-Landscape-Gallery/i-PtbqWkR/4/L/_DSC6197-L.jpg)
The last one I could have done with the 5D mkIII likely or at least doing an HDR merge using the 32 bit Photomatix plugin for Lightroom and the edit the 32 bit file in Lightroom. In such cases I would shoot the 5D mkIII using live view and EFSC in continuous mode which means that clouds will move very little through a bracket sequence. But it is simpler and will not break the workflow using a single RAW file from the Nikon, so this is a clear advantage.
-
It was on purpose that I included the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR since this is the best performing Nikon 70-200. It was about price since clearly an f/2.8 lens is more expensive than an f/4 lens. Canon has a similar lens that is slightly less performing than the f/2.8.
If you look at the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII on the D3X which is 24MP and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II on the 22.8MP 5D mkIII you will see the difference in lens quality
Agreed, but will qualify by saying that the D3x (2008) is a 4 year older sensor model than the 5DmkIII (2012). Using the new D750 would be unfair and the same age 5DmkII has only 18MP. Nothing is ever 'equal' and you have to work with what is available at the time and at this time the D810 w/ 70-200mm Nikkor tests better than the comparable Canon offering of 5DmkIII w/ Canon 70-200mm. Whether one would see a difference is another matter and would depend on technique and shooting conditions.
-
Nick,
This site has turned into not only being Canon bashing but lately also Nikon. I have no problem with reviews that criticize vendors for their products and the functions, price etc. But to do so without good reasoning is just in my opinion not productive for anybody. What I do not like at all is general statements that are not only incorrect but also done without even unpacking products from the given vendor. I cannot remember when the last review of a Canon EOS product was done on this site. I believe the last camerabody review was the 1Ds mkIII done by Michael in 2007. The choice not to review Canon EOS products is entirely up to LuLa, but I would then expect that comparisons to Canon products are not made.
And btw. I was not referring to your reviews...
There is a difference between LuLa bashing products and Forum posts.
Personally, I am an equal opportunity criticizer. Both Nikon and Canon have lots of functionality that can be added to their products that would make them more useful...at least to me. I allow that most of these depend on processing capability and onboard power which is a real constraint. And I want both brands to do well such that the competition pushes the other.
Number 1 criticism is why almost every camera has a bunch of Settings Spreadsheet (http://www.dojoklo.com/Full_Stop/forms/Nikon_D810_Experience-Setup_Guide.xls) floating around. Why are we keeping settings in a spreadsheet and not in the camera? Because neither company is competent enough to add that functionality. Don't know what Canon offers, but Nikon's Enthusiast Line's U1/U2 settings are an incomplete and too few approximation of this functionality and the Pro line Shooting Banks is almost worse.
-
Agreed, but will qualify by saying that the D3x (2008) is a 4 year older sensor model than the 5DmkIII (2012). Using the new D750 would be unfair and the same age 5DmkII has only 18MP. Nothing is ever 'equal' and you have to work with what is available at the time and at this time the D810 w/ 70-200mm Nikkor tests better than the comparable Canon offering of 5DmkIII w/ Canon 70-200mm. Whether one would see a difference is another matter and would depend on technique and shooting conditions.
Yes, sure, so lets take another Nikon sensor like the D610 which also 24MP and the result is the same. The 5D II sensor is not the same as the 5D III.
-
Yes, sure, so lets take another Nikon sensor like the D610 which also 24MP and the result is the same. The 5D II sensor is not the same as the 5D III.
Again we agree. The Nikon package tests out just slightly better.
If we wanted to just test lenses, then they need imaged to the same test platform. In the real world, that is not possible. The lenses/camera form a system and the 5DmkIII is the closest equivalent offering from Canon to the D810 based on price and features and camera line positioning of both manufacturers.
I think what we all can agree upon is that it would be very beneficial to Canon Lens owners if Canon would release a camera of better sensor properties to better utilize the excellent quality of their lenses.
-
... I cannot remember when the last review of a Canon EOS product was done on this site.... I would then expect that comparisons to Canon products are not made.
Hams, in all fairness to LuLa, it is not hard to see why. Canon simply has not come up with anything excitable and worth testing since then. Nobody gets excited over testing a Camry, which is what Canon has become.
P.S. For the record, I use Canons and drive a Camry
-
Hams, in all fairness to LuLa, it is not hard to see why. Canon simply has not come up with anything excitable and worth testing since then. Nobody gets excited over testing a Camry, which is what Canon has become.
Anything? Come on now.
Lest we forget, Canon has come out with some awesome lenses: 16-35 f/4 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html) (best in class); 24-70 II f/2.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843008-USA/Canon_5175B002_EF_24_70mm_f_2_8L_II.html) (best in class); 200-400 f/4 + built-in extender (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/973129-REG/canon_5176b002_ef_200_400mm_f_4l_is.html) (possibly the single best, most versatile high-end wildlife lens from anyone).
The truth is, Canon has the most complete overall lens lineup of anyone, and their cameras do pretty much everything better than the competition, functionality-wise, they just are a tad behind in their sensors.
Once the single issue of the sensor issue is addressed, and it will be, there won't be much to complain about.
It will actually take Fuji, Samsung, Nikon, etc. a lot longer to catch up to Canon than the reverse.
P.S. For the record, I use Canons and drive a Camry
:D
-
And thank you for reminding me why this forum isn't worth another single waking moment of my life.
- N.
Nick,
It's always been Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon.
Somewhere in between the talk was medium format vs. 35mm.
Now of course there is some mention of Sony and Pentax.
At least sometimes there was an emphasis on the actual photograph.
Now it's just tech. Not the technique it requires to produce something worth producing, but just tech for techs sake, mixed with Brand worship.
I use to think people naively thought there was that one machine that would make them the next Weston, Avedon, Penn . . .
Now it seems that that's not the plan. The plan is that one machine that they can prove is better and win some kind of made up argument on the web.
A contest, but there is no prize.
The bottom line is this:
If you can't produce a compelling image from a 7 year old camera, you'll never be able to produce a compelling image.
IMO
BC
P.S. Bernhard. We all know your love of the d800 whatever and have the thousands of mentions to prove it. That's your choice but word to the wise.
If you want attention for your imagery, talk the imagery not the tech. Anybody can buy a camera.
-
... 200-400 f/4 + built-in extender (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/973129-REG/canon_5176b002_ef_200_400mm_f_4l_is.html) (possibly the single best, most versatile high-end wildlife lens from anyone)...
And LuLa had its review (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon_200_400_view_review.shtml), hadn't it?
-
Nick,
It's always been Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon.
Somewhere in between the talk was medium format vs. 35mm.
Now of course there is some mention of Sony and Pentax.
At least sometimes there was an emphasis on the actual photograph.
Now it's just tech. Not the technique it requires to produce something worth producing, but just tech for techs sake, mixed with Brand worship.
I use to think people naively thought there was that one machine that would make them the next Weston, Avedon, Penn . . .
Now it seems that that's not the plan. The plan is that one machine that they can prove is better and win some kind of made up argument on the web.
A contest, but there is no prize.
The bottom line is this:
If you can't produce a compelling image from a 7 year old camera, you'll never be able to produce a compelling image.
IMO
BC
P.S. Bernhard. We all know your love of the d800 whatever and have the thousands of mentions to prove it. That's your choice but word to the wise.
If you want attention for your imagery, talk the imagery not the tech. Anybody can buy a camera.
I don't know but I still shoot with 7 year old cameras and while I can't say that my images are compelling they are commercially successful and no one tells me...to this day...that I need a better or different camera. They just continue to ask me to produce images for them and I cash their checks.
Quite frankly its a very good thing to be off the continuous 18 month camera upgrade cycle. Now, I shoot Canon and while the tech guy inside of me would love a new high res sensor, the business guys says its not broken and it doesn't need fixed.
Given that I'm sure I would buy a 36mp or higher Canon, but I'm not switching systems or workflow to do that now with another brand.
Everyone has different needs and wants. For me a 5dII and a 1DsIII still work just fine.
-
The Nikon 200-400 f4 is a wonderful lens while the Canon is probably a wonderful lens as well. The Canon is not quite twice the price of the Nikon. I have a Canon-shooting colleague who is vocally disappointed with the Canon price. Full disclosure; I shoot Nikon, have the 200-400, and have nothing against Canon.
-
Hams, in all fairness to LuLa, it is not hard to see why. Canon simply has not come up with anything excitable and worth testing since then. Nobody gets excited over testing a Camry, which is what Canon has become.
P.S. For the record, I use Canons and drive a Camry
In recent years Canon has come up with at least the following list relevant for still photography and with video capability:
6D, 5D mkIII, 1DX, 7D mkII
16-35 f/4L IS
24-70 f/2.8L II
24-70 f/4L IS
70-200 f/2.8L IS II
70-300 f/4-5.6L IS
100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
200-400L f/4 IS plus 1.4x TC built-in
300 f/2.8L IS II
400 f/2.8L IS II
500 f/4L IS II
600 f/4L IS II
plus the TS-E 17 f/4L and 24 f/3.5L II
and I might even have missed a few ones.
I agree that the sensor of the Canon cameras has not improved DR, but almost anything has been improved a lot. So it seems to me that the sensor is the reason for not giving Canon any credit for a lot of really good new products that have come out in the last few years.
-
At least sometimes there was an emphasis on the actual photograph.
Now it's just tech. Not the technique it requires to produce something worth producing, but just tech for techs sake, mixed with Brand worship.
This particular part of the LuLa forum is titled "Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear" so one should expect dicussion of 'tech'. Though it would be helpful if people would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of their equipment in a realistic fashion indicate how to exploit those strengths and overcome the weaknesses.
The bottom line is this:
If you can't produce a compelling image from a 7 year old camera, you'll never be able to produce a compelling image.
While I certainly agree with your statement, that does not mean that better 'tech' would not allow for a better image or an image that can be utilized in more ways at larger sizes. Nor does it obviate the obligation of the photographer to understand what tech is necessary to execute a particular image well. When reviewing my older images made with a D300 (12MP) and D70 (6MP), there are lots of sighs and if only's to include if only I had more pixels or more DR or less noise. Nothing more disappointing than great images, made during once in a lifetime opportunities, that just can't be teased or tortured to the purpose you want.
-
Talent, perhaps?
I don't know that brand. Where can I get it?
Hans' pix really amaze me :)
Edmund
-
Conditions like strong winds and associated vibration, atmospheric haze, and available light versus speed of subjects vary enormously. So does post-processing software and skill using it. Unless you shoot with two cameras simultaneously, post process their RAW files identically, and print both results at large sizes, it's between very difficult and impossible to determine what camera took a given photograph. There are countless variables and without a reference, which is never available, one can't actually know anything except whether they like the image. In a group of images where technical quality ranges from just "acceptable" to flawless, the most artistically compelling image is always the one people want. Always.
-
Hi,
A lot of good points…
Erik
Regardless of ability (or camera for that matter), there is the matter of what technique one can or cannot use successfully with a given camera, and how much that matters to one.
If you have a style that depends upon the ability to lift shadows at base ISO, then you would want a sensor that would facilitate that. There are lots of artistic reasons why one might want to do this. One might want to shoot people in open sun without fill flash plus assistants plus modifiers plus stands. One might want to do an indoor-outdoor shot where one wants to have detail revealed on the inside part. One might prefer an "illustration" style where the shadows are compressed into the mid-tones. And you want all of these things to be clean.
All of these things may involve lifting the shadows selectively one or two stops, or even more. You can do this on a Sony sensor, which is optimized for noise at base ISO, and /mostly/ "ISO-less". You cannot do this on most Canons without revealing ugly pattern noise. And this is one reason why Canon is judged to be "behind".
If you do not do any of the things that reveal pattern noise, then the Canon has many things to recommend it, including advanced AF and an excellent lens selection, and a pretty look to its images.
At the APS-c level, I'm keeping a close watch on Samsung with its NX-1. This should keep us engaged until Fossum's Quanta Image Sensor gets built.
-
Now it's just tech. Not the technique it requires to produce something worth producing, but just tech for techs sake, mixed with Brand worship.
First, this is a thread about Canon vs alternatives, is it not? Isn't comments about equipment the exact expectation of the OP?
But I do agree with your overall point and this is the very reason why my posts here were mostly about showing images and explaining what shooting techniques were used to capture them. I haven't seen anybody else here sharing any information about shooting techniques in this thread.
If you can't produce a compelling image from a 7 year old camera, you'll never be able to produce a compelling image.
Yes, that is true but what does it have to do with a discussion about the progress of camera technology? Are you saying that recent cameras have no additional value relative to 7 years old gear? Does that apply to lenses too?
Besides, have you considered the possibility that other types of photography may benefit more from those than yours?
P.S. Bernhard. We all know your love of the d800 whatever and have the thousands of mentions to prove it. That's your choice but word to the wise.
If you want attention for your imagery, talk the imagery not the tech. Anybody can buy a camera.
Thanks for the advice. I happen to think that my images get the attention they deserve. In fact, considering the little time I am able to spend on photography these days, I would say they get a fair share. ;)
Is it a good think to illustrate a point with images or you'd rather stick to plain text? Does illustrating a point with images necessarily mean that the only purpose of imaging is to discuss technical points?
Is your view that musicians can't love looking at paintings, that body-builders don't read books or that photographers can't discuss the technical merits of cameras and take images they are happy about? Because you keep implying this again and again so I am starting to wonder.
Besides, how about a little introspection James? Many of your own posts are about gear. Yes, you do post great images, but I don't remember you ever providing any shooting advice about how these were captured. At best a one liner about a lighting brand. Such contributions would be highly valuable in my view.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In a group of images where technical quality ranges from just "acceptable" to flawless, the most artistically compelling image is always the one people want. Always.
Other than highlighting that 'artistically compelling' is a trait of the viewer and varies from viewer to viewer, I think this is a true statement. But comparing two images of the 'same scene' artistically treated identically where one is technically well executed and the other isn't, most viewers usually opt for the better executed photo. I used 'most' and 'usually' because we already had a poster indicated that he prefers blocked up shadows in a high DR image because it looks 'wrong' to him otherwise. Unfortunately, as an amateur, I make a lot of these side by side comparison because I was too quick to snap the shutter before accounting for...some technical aspect or another. :-[
-
All of these things may involve lifting the shadows selectively one or two stops, or even more. You can do this on a Sony sensor, which is optimized for noise at base ISO, and /mostly/ "ISO-less". You cannot do this on most Canons without revealing ugly pattern noise. And this is one reason why Canon is judged to be "behind".
If you do not do any of the things that reveal pattern noise, then the Canon has many things to recommend it, including advanced AF and an excellent lens selection, and a pretty look to its images.
Nevertheless the examples I have shown during this thread using the Canon 5D mkIII did involve lifting shadows and without pattern noise. But pattern noise does exist and I do prefer the sensor on the D810 I also shoot with, but it does not mean that what you describe is not possible using a Canon like e.g. the 5D mkIII. The 6D is slightly better in that regard. The Canon does need optimal exposure to do what I do. I do this using bracketing and then select the most exposed shot from the bracketing sequence in Lightroom that does not have essential highlights blown out. When this is not enough I will do HDR merge to 32bit TIFF and then edit in Lightroom. In some cases this is not possible though.
-
I don't know that brand. Where can I get it?
Hans' pix really amaze me :)
Edmund
Thanks, thanks Edmund :) Getting the shot has a lot to do with knowing and seeing where to be. It's about having a sense for where a great shot will occur and when you are there it is about seeing it. Then after capture do the post processing to reveal what you had in mind when getting the shot.
This is what my workshops are all about.
-
Other than highlighting that 'artistically compelling' is a trait of the viewer and varies from viewer to viewer, I think this is a true statement.
I agree completely. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. At the same time I don't think traits of an image visible only with a loupe or at nose length qualify as "artistic traits".
But comparing two images of the 'same scene' artistically treated identically where one is technically well executed and the other isn't, most viewers usually opt for the better executed photo.
I understand your point and agree in theory, but I don't think I've ever seen artistically identical photographs that vary technically, except for online resolution test charts. It's pretty rare for two different people to end up capturing the same scene with different equipment and then processing and printing it the same way.
-
Thanks, thanks Edmund :) Getting the shot has a lot to do with knowing and seeing where to be. It's about having a sense for where a great shot will occur and when you are there it is about seeing it. Then after capture do the post processing to reveal what you had in mind when getting the shot.
This is what my workshops are all about.
Apart from amazing composition, I think these pictures are the best uses of HDR-style tone compression I've ever seen. I always thought HDR was a cute technique, but not that interesting - I was completely wrong.
One good reason for "attending" a forum is that from time to time something completely unexpected is brought to one's attention. This is such a case for me.
A 24 stop DR camera might help to add an image of the sun complete with sunspots to these compositions ....
Edmund
-
Nick,
It's always been Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon.
Somewhere in between the talk was medium format vs. 35mm.
Now of course there is some mention of Sony and Pentax.
At least sometimes there was an emphasis on the actual photograph.
Now it's just tech. Not the technique it requires to produce something worth producing, but just tech for techs sake, mixed with Brand worship.
I use to think people naively thought there was that one machine that would make them the next Weston, Avedon, Penn . . .
Now it seems that that's not the plan. The plan is that one machine that they can prove is better and win some kind of made up argument on the web.
A contest, but there is no prize.
The bottom line is this:
If you can't produce a compelling image from a 7 year old camera, you'll never be able to produce a compelling image.
IMO
BC
P.S. Bernhard. We all know your love of the d800 whatever and have the thousands of mentions to prove it. That's your choice but word to the wise.
If you want attention for your imagery, talk the imagery not the tech. Anybody can buy a camera.
sanity
-
The bottom line is this:
If you can't produce a compelling image from a 7 year old camera, you'll never be able to produce a compelling image.
+1
Thank you for this.
-
because we already had a poster indicated that he prefers blocked up shadows in a high DR image because it looks 'wrong' to him otherwise.
I assume that you're commenting on my reply #149 ? If so please comment on what I actually wrote, not what suits your argument. Just read it again I said;
"I think the shot would look a lot better with LESS DR. The detail in the tree in the foreground just looks totally wrong when the rest of the scene is so strongly backlit. It looks like you've used a flash on it and seems unnatural to me."
That doesn't say I like 'blocked up shadows' it simply says the foreground tree and shadowed grass has too much detail in it to look correct. You could probably darken the areas, by the equivalent of about two stops. The detail would still be there, not 'blocked up', and look far more natural.
Maybe you need to go and look at some really fine work to understand this sort of issue. Go and have a look at a range of Ansel Adams prints and see the differences in his various interpretations of his negatives, then you might understand that subtlety is often a hallmark of great work. You don't need every detail of scene lifted out to obviousness.
Unfortunately, as an amateur, I make a lot of these side by side comparison because I was too quick to snap the shutter before accounting for...some technical aspect or another.
Maybe you need to work on your own skills before blaming kit then.
It's interesting to note throughout this thread the loudest arguments about one manufacturer being good or bad seem to come from amateurs obsessing about numbers. Those of us that earn a living from our image making are far more pragmatic.
-
Yup. One of the lists I contribute to comprises of 150 or so photographers who make their living in the business. I can't remember the last time there was a discussion on the list concerning dynamic range, or resolution, or sensor size, or indeed camera choice.
Sigh, all these generalizations ....
-
"In a group of images where technical quality ranges from just "acceptable" to flawless, the most artistically compelling image is always the one people want. Always."
Other than highlighting that 'artistically compelling' is a trait of the viewer and varies from viewer to viewer, I think this is a true statement.
Of course, because it's little more than a tautology.
However, photography is a broad church, and there is room for people who want to make as technically perfect a picture as possible, regardless of whether others consider it 'artistically compelling'. Heck, there's even room for me, whose pictures are far from technically perfect and only rarely artistically compelling to me, let alone anyone else!
-
sanity
Zzzz, all this tech-obsession...
My love of photography is partly about the gear and I don't think any excuse is or should be needed for that especially in a section of the forum which appears to be specifically for gear talk.
Since going digital what I've always wanted is a direct replacement for the 35mm SLR's, RF's and compacts I had in the past and I feel that I'm almost there now and I think that only a leap in technology such as some new sensor technology or maybe a global shutter would persuade me to buy a new body so I like to browse the various rumour, review and forum sites to see what's happening and what people think and there's always the opportunity to learn, maybe help sometimes if I can or to be just entertained.
Please don't have too much of a pop at people who may go on a little about gear. Gear may not be the holy grail but in a gear orientated section of the forum maybe there's room for friendly gear chat?
-
Zzzz, all this tech-obsession...
This is clearly a technical thread in a gear forum folder, so why jump into a thread here and complain about technical considerations? I don't get it, sorry.
Knowing about the technical stuff does not stop you from making wonderful photos, so don't worry ;)
Not knowing about technical stuff can make you take less than optimal photos especially if printed large, so do worry about that part (if you care). ;)
-
Hi,
Having spent some days on a workshop with Hans I would suggest some other factors:
- Researching the areas where he is shooting
- Very early mornings and late evening, when there is that magic light
- Knowledge and experience
- A consistent style
- Good understanding of the the tools of the trade
And yes, some talent is involved, too!
Best regards
Erik
All the points you listed above is called talent.
-
I feel for those who fall for the conceit that using the latest and greatest is going to make the difference.
That's caring of you, but as a matter of interest, who are you referring to?
-
Those who fall for it.
Yes, I think you said that first time around. Still, good to see it confirmed that you aren't wasting valuable energy being compassionate on behalf of those who don't need it.
-
I feel for those who fall for the conceit that using the latest and greatest is going to make the difference. I accept it's in the interests of sites such as this and those who run workshops to promote gear acquisition and take the line that it will change their punter's lives.
Well, I don't know if you include me in this, but on my workshops we discuss gear only as needed to explain how to get the best technical quality with what each have got of equipment, not to acquire gear. There is much greater emphasis is on how to make compelling pictures. To my knowledge there are only a few vendor sponsored workshops that is geared towards gear acquisition like e.g. the Phase One PODAS workshops. But even these are designed to spend a lot of time on getting good shots. I was an instructor on two of them.
-
Well, I don't know if you include me in this, but on my workshops we discuss gear only as needed to explain how to get the best technical quality with what each have got of equipment, not to acquire gear. There is much greater emphasis is on how to make compelling pictures. To my knowledge there are only a vendor sponsored workshops that is geared towards gear acquisition like e.g. the Phase One PODAS workshops. But even these are designed to spend a lot of time on getting good shots. I was an instructor on two of them.
Indeed - it would be foolish of you (or any instructor) to persuade people to buy expensive gear, as they a) would be disappointed and blame you for their disappointment, and b) have less money for the next workshop :-)
-
Tell that to PODAS.
Hmm, well, that's clearly a bit different - surely anyone going on a PODAS workshop knows that the name of the game is to instill gear envy. However, that said, I haven't been on a PODAS workshop with Hans, but I'd be astonished(*) if he promoted Phase One gear on the workshops he instructs for them.
(*) For the non-British, this means that it simply doesn't happen.
-
This thread has reached ridiculous heights in non sequiturs, strawman arguments, and true but irrelevant statements by the anti-tech Taliban ;)
-
Hans, no, I've no idea what approach you take. I should perhaps add that the PODAS workshops aren't alone in promoting gear acquisition, much the same happens on the workshops that are associated with Hasselblad.
I have no idea why you came up with the suggestion that workshop leaders will time on promoting gear on their workshops, except if is a vendor sponsored workshop as mentioned. I never heard about gear promotions on workshops. It just does not make any sense to me.
-
I feel for those who fall for the conceit that using the latest and greatest is going to make the difference. I accept it's in the interests of sites such as this and those who run workshops to promote gear acquisition and take the line that it will change their punter's lives.
I actually feel sorry for those that don't seem to understand what they can gain from addition Megapixels, DR, Colors, and high ISO performance. While the performance of the D810 sensor can show weaknesses in technique and even lenses, it also provides forgiveness and options for cropping, framing and exposure.
While a D810 won't make me into Art Wolfe it does make me a better me. As it would make Art Wolfe a better Art Wolfe. Anyone want to argue that 5DmkIII shooters wound't do back flips if Canon handed them a 5DmkIV with 30MP, 15 EV DR, expanded color palette and significantly better high ISO performance and less noise.
I bought the D810 because I wanted to get off the upgrade merry go round. When shooting film, one could take advantages in new emulsions and substrates without having to upgrade. With DSLRs you are buying a performance ceiling. It was the 1st camera that had a performance level at which I believe I would be satisfied to be 'stuck' at even though I know there will be performance and feature advances that will make cameras better than the D810.
-
I actually feel sorry for those that don't seem to understand what they can gain from addition Megapixels, DR, Colors, and high ISO performance. While the performance of the D810 sensor can show weaknesses in technique and even lenses, it also provides forgiveness and options for cropping, framing and exposure.
While a D810 won't make me into Art Wolfe it does make me a better me. As it would make Art Wolfe a better Art Wolfe. Anyone want to argue that 5DmkIII shooters wound't do back flips if Canon handed them a 5DmkIV with 30MP, 15 EV DR, expanded color palette and significantly better high ISO performance and less noise.
I bought the D810 because I wanted to get off the upgrade merry go round. When shooting film, one could take advantages in new emulsions and substrates without having to upgrade. With DSLRs you are buying a performance ceiling. It was the 1st camera that had a performance level at which I believe I would be satisfied to be 'stuck' at even though I know there will be performance and feature advances that will make cameras better than the D810.
Would you mind sharing a link to your website showing your pictures?
-
I've already said that my reference to gear acquisition and workshops was in turn a reference to the PODAS and Hasselblad associated workshops. Does stating it again make it any clearer?
Yes, now you clearly state what you omitted in post #181. Then what was the purpose of mentioning workshops in #181 if you meant vendor workshops where it is clear for the attendees that they are going to be approached with a sales person who would like to convince them to buy a medium format camera? Why do you feel sorry for them? They don't go into the workshop with blinders do they?
What I was offended about (organizing workshops myself) was that you omitted that you meant vendor workshops. That's a very small minority of workshops.
-
You want me to feel guilty about your misunderstanding?
There was no misunderstanding, only lack of clarity in your responses.
-
You want me to feel guilty about your misunderstanding?
He didn't "misunderstand". You wrote "I accept it's in the interests of [...] those who run workshops to promote gear acquisition", which is clear enough. Now you are trying to backpedal away from your accusation. Don't waste your time - nobody's fooled.
-
I actually feel sorry for those that don't seem to understand what they can gain from addition Megapixels, DR, Colors, and high ISO performance. While the performance of the D810 sensor can show weaknesses in technique and even lenses, it also provides forgiveness and options for cropping, framing and exposure.
While a D810 won't make me into Art Wolfe it does make me a better me. As it would make Art Wolfe a better Art Wolfe.
...
That last part could be true in a fantasy world where high speed wildlife sequences are shot at single-digit frame rates using cameras with sluggish focus acquisition relative to cameras like a D4s or 1DX.
-
I actually feel sorry for those that don't seem to understand what they can gain from addition Megapixels, DR, Colors, and high ISO performance.
You really don't seem to get the idea here. We DO know what advantages there are from all the latest numbers. What you fail to appreciate is that for many people the new numbers aren't something spending the extra money on.
-
I actually feel sorry for those that don't seem to understand what they can gain from addition Megapixels, DR, Colors, and high ISO performance. While the performance of the D810 sensor can show weaknesses in technique and even lenses, it also provides forgiveness and options for cropping, framing and exposure.
This could be a form of boundary disorder, wouldn't you say?
While a D810 won't make me into Art Wolfe it does make me a better me. As it would make Art Wolfe a better Art Wolfe. Anyone want to argue that 5DmkIII shooters wound't do back flips if Canon handed them a 5DmkIV with 30MP, 15 EV DR, expanded color palette and significantly better high ISO performance and less noise.
This is the part where you're seriously failing to understand. What makes Art Wolfe "Art Wolfe" is the fact he's actually out there, in key places, capturing images of fantastic subjects ... it's not because of "what camera he has." You may have a technically-superior sensor in your camera, but you will never be an Art Wolfe because you're not constantly out there, traveling, exploring, experimenting, creating.
As one member said, "If you can't produce a compelling image from a 7 year old camera, you can't produce a compelling image."
I bought the D810 because I wanted to get off the upgrade merry go round. When shooting film, one could take advantages in new emulsions and substrates without having to upgrade. With DSLRs you are buying a performance ceiling. It was the 1st camera that had a performance level at which I believe I would be satisfied to be 'stuck' at even though I know there will be performance and feature advances that will make cameras better than the D810.
All of which is worth nothing, if you're not prepared to go out into the world and actually use it on fascinating subjects ... or if you can't capture ordinary subjects in a fascinating way.
The part you don't understand is if a person can/does do the above, they have something more valuable to their photography than the latest camera.
Jack
-
This could be a form of boundary disorder, wouldn't you say?
This is the part where you're seriously failing to understand. What makes Art Wolfe "Art Wolfe" is the fact he's actually out there, in key places, capturing images of fantastic subjects ... it's not because of "what camera he has." You may have a technically-superior sensor in your camera, but you will never be an Art Wolfe because you're not constantly out there, traveling, exploring, experimenting, creating.
As one member said, "If you can't produce a compelling image from a 7 year old camera, you can't produce a compelling image."
All of which is worth nothing, if you're not prepared to go out into the world and actually use it on fascinating subjects ... or if you can't capture ordinary subjects in a fascinating way.
The part you don't understand is if a person can/does do the above, they have something more valuable to their photography than the latest camera.
Jack
Eh? Nothing he wrote contradicts that. He never said anything remotely like that any amount of technology would make him an Art Wolfe.
-
That last part could be true in a fantasy world where high speed wildlife sequences are shot at single-digit frame rates using cameras with sluggish focus acquisition relative to cameras like a D4s or 1DX.
While the D810 does not have the frame rate or throughput ideally suited to fast action sequences, it does have the same focus system as the D4. And since I learned to shoot with finger winder and manual focus, I find 5-7 fps reasonably fast.
It is interesting to me that folks are willing to argue that on one hand, image quality enhancements don't matter, but on the other functional performance enhancements are absolutely critical. While the truth is both quality and functional improvements matter, but the situations in which either matter is a small subset of the entire universe of photo making opportunities. Diminishing returns kick in.
Considering this thread started with a question asked in the 1st post and answered in the 2nd post, I wonder what to make of the fact that this thread is now some 12 pages long.
-
I realize this is a euphemistic line of arguing, but I would never want to be an Art Wolfe, nor anyone else. I want to be the best me that I can be. Otherwise it's just a cheap copy of an original.
-
I realize this is a euphemistic line of arguing, but I would never want to be an Art Wolfe, nor anyone else. I want to be the best me that I can be. Otherwise it's just a cheap copy of an original.
+1 Though I would be an expensive, smart-ass copy of the original. Besides, I think I would prefer to be a copy of John Shaw since I'm more landscape and he gets to shoot with better cameras. :P
-
While the D810 does not have the frame rate or throughput ideally suited to fast action sequences, it does have the same focus system as the D4. And since I learned to shoot with finger winder and manual focus, I find 5-7 fps reasonably fast.
It is interesting to me that folks are willing to argue that on one hand, image quality enhancements don't matter, but on the other functional performance enhancements are absolutely critical. While the truth is both quality and functional improvements matter, but the situations in which either matter is a small subset of the entire universe of photo making opportunities. Diminishing returns kick in.
Considering this thread started with a question asked in the 1st post and answered in the 2nd post, I wonder what to make of the fact that this thread is now some 12 pages long.
The point I was trying to make is that the same person arguing that DR and megapixels are of the utmost importance is in effect saying the frame rate and focus acquisition speed don't matter. I find that ironic. FWIW, cameras like the D4s and 1DX have battery packs with a higher voltage to, among other things, drive heavy focusing elements in super-tele lenses faster.
-
The point I was trying to make is that the same person arguing that DR and megapixels are of the utmost importance is in effect saying the frame rate and focus acquisition speed don't matter. I find that ironic. FWIW, cameras like the D4s and 1DX have battery packs with a higher voltage to, among other things, drive heavy focusing elements in super-tele lenses faster.
Don't recall arguing that frame rate or focus acquisition/tracking don't matter. I did not buy the D810 looking for a high speed, wildlife or sports camera. I bought it as an all-purpose camera I would be happy to keep for an extended period of time. While I would certainly be happy to have more fps than 5, I can live with it, even with the sports I shoot. And I think Nikon is stupid not to have an 8-10 frame 24MP DX sensor camera to compete directly with the 7DmkII.
-
Until this thread I was unaware of both Hans Kruse and his workshops.
I odn't know how you missed Hans over the years. He may not be the most prolific poster on LuLa, but the images he posts here almost define the idea of a Luminous Landscape.
-
Don't recall arguing that frame rate or focus acquisition/tracking don't matter. I did not buy the D810 looking for a high speed, wildlife or sports camera. I bought it as an all-purpose camera I would be happy to keep for an extended period of time. While I would certainly be happy to have more fps than 5, I can live with it, even with the sports I shoot. And I think Nikon is stupid not to have an 8-10 frame 24MP DX sensor camera to compete directly with the 7DmkII.
FWIW, I actually agree with a lot of what you say. I was referring specifically to the statement that a D810 "...would make Art Wolfe a better Art Wolfe", and the fact he shoots lots of wildlife action at 12 FPS with one of the fastest AF systems in existence. All the DR in the world is of no use if you can't capture the image in the first place.
Happy New Year!
-
+1 Though I would be an expensive, smart-ass copy of the original. Besides, I think I would prefer to be a copy of John Shaw since I'm more landscape and he gets to shoot with better cameras. :P
I have asked before, but I can't wait to see some of your images, especially landscape.
-
Until this thread I was unaware of both Hans Kruse and his workshops. What possible motive could I have to denigrate either when I've already suggested that his images are a result of his talent?
Then your blanket denigration is even more inexcusable.
Anyway, I'm bored with your wriggling. Go ahead and have the last word.
-
I wish you guys would post faster. I'm home sick and reading this thread is my entertainment.
-
I think, Keith, that your image might benefit from a better image stabilization or more stable hands or less dirty mind ;)
-
but I don't remember you ever providing any shooting advice about how these were captured. At best a one liner about a lighting brand. Such contributions would be highly valuable in my view.
Sure, but I usually don't mention "the why" cause nobody usually asks.
But here goes and I'll try to limit it with available light imagery.
(All but one image is cropped for a video presentation)
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/london_70d.jpg)
Canon 70d no modifiers available window light.
Simple image.
During a motion shoot in London. No fill, used for a inset of 20 subjects, all shot separately.
I also needed stills from each quick session and usually used the 1dx but since the light was falling fast, I just used the 70d I was shooting the motion imagery with.
If time had permitted I would have added soft white fill on the left, but it was an easy pull up in post so I just shot it.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/brazil_1d3.jpg)
Canon 1d3 (not 1ds3).
A still shoot in Brazil. For a coffee table book project on organic farming for an international client.
I had 1ds and even medium format, but these were brutal conditions, the subjects were real and redo's were difficult.
The 1d3 I bought only for this project and sold it a month later (should have kept it as it produced a very pretty file).
No fill light, no modifiers, just camera, lens subject and overhead light. Obviously the sky was worked in post, but it is the same natural sky all from one frame.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/osaka_d2x.jpg)
Commissioned to shoot 4 athletes in Osaka.
Nikon d2x with an old 80 to 200 push pull.
Had a d3 on me on me but for some reason the d2x just felt right. The key to this image was scouting the location and knowing the look I wanted to achieve.
The d2x shot razor sharp but would blow a highlight easily, so I always shot a little under and it pulled up nicely.
It wasn't known for high ISO and I think I pushed it to around 1200 iso or something like that.
Regardless it worked, available light, no modifiers.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/dallas_1ds3.jpg)
Editorial in Dallas with 1ds3.
Did about 14 setups that day/night. Window light, no modifiers, though the exposure was a little slow and time was tight so I pulled a table over, cushioned it with my jacket and just shot it.
Though this subject is relatively still, I rarely direct talent while I'm shooting. I hate that move your hand to the left type of direction.
I go over the direction before we shoot, give the talent some idea of the look and what they should project and let them do it.
We had lights, fill, modifiers, but unless you need them then why use them and usually if we use them it's only to enhance the image, not dominate it.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/hk_d700.jpg)
Advertising in Hong Kong, Nikon D700 or 7000 I dunno the cheap version of the d3.
I used this camera because it focused fast and is not that expensive. Where we were shooting had waves with huge undertow.
I positioned a camera grip behind me and would fire off 10 frames hold the camera up he would grab it and run to the beach, the undertow would grab me and pull me under water.
I felt the cheaper Nikon was a camera I'd be less upset with losing and reliably hit focus.
No fill, no modifiers, no lights.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/LA_LeicaS2.jpg)
Editorial and Co-op Advertising in LA. Leica S2.
I lit this with window light and a 75watt tungsten fresnel for accent, but could have used a 50 watt bulb and some foil.
I use the S2 because I like it. It's not baby bottom smooth, kind of slow, kind of big, very nice to hold, very nice to use.
It will be a camera I own a long, long time even though it's old tech and actually I think the old tech works for me better than the new tech because I use it's limitations as a positive rather than a negative.
_____________________________________________________________________
I know that a certain faction on this forum thinks photographers in my genre make up the deficiencies for our "not so good" cameras with lights, crews, generators and post trickery.
Not actually true.
I also have the impression that the same people think we have two days to do one photograph and a crew of 50 . . . also not always true. We do double digit setups a day, long days and if we get it in 5 frames or 50, we get it.
A lot of people on this forum understand that there is no option not to get the shot, because that's how they pay their bills. That doesn't mean that the people that shoot for fun don't have an investment and don't want to succeed.
But wanting to and having to are different responsibilities.
Actually of all the images I and some others post, the camera and equipment is very secondary. We produce our imagery with something more precious than a sensor that some tech site rates as good.
We do it with experience, planning, an obsession to never let the people that count on us wanting.
We might wax on lyrically that we shoot for ourselves, but in all honesty we shoot with the audience in mind.
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
I have been a frequent traveler to the Dolomites for many years. In the last couple of years I have seen a lot of splendid images from the Dolomites by Hans, so when I discovered that he had workshops in the area I was eager to join.
The workshop I have taken part in was the Dolomites West workshop in early June 2013, and it was a very good one. Hans talked about both Canon and Nikon, and the participants were shooting Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Fuji and Sony cameras. Hans was not advocating either Canon or Nikon but the workshop had a bias towards processing in Lightroom.
Just to mention, the cost was around 1200$, all inclusive, except rental cars. Participants having access to cars did the driving. Accommodation was good and both food and wine was included.
I have signed up for Dolomites East, in September.
Best regards
Erik
Until this thread I was unaware of both Hans Kruse and his workshops. What possible motive could I have to denigrate either when I've already suggested that his images are a result of his talent?
-
Sure, but I usually don't mention "the why" cause nobody usually asks.
...
_________________________________________________________________
I know that a certain faction on this forum thinks photographers in my genre make up the deficiencies for our "not so good" cameras with lights, crews, generators and post trickery.
Not actually true.
I also have the impression that the same people think we have two days to do one photograph and a crew of 50 . . . also not always true. We do double digit setups a day, long days and if we get it in 5 frames or 50, we get it.
A lot of people on this forum understand that there is no option not to get the shot, because that's how they pay their bills. That doesn't mean that the people that shoot for fun don't have an investment and don't want to succeed.
But wanting to and having to are different responsibilities.
Actually of all the images I and some others post, the camera and equipment is very secondary. We produce our imagery with something more precious than a sensor that some tech site rates as good.
We do it with experience, planning, an obsession to never let the people that count on us wanting.
We might wax on lyrically that we shoot for ourselves, but in all honesty we shoot with the audience in mind.
Thanks James, very interesting!
At least one of my images maybe somehow feels like one of yours. ;) i think it was shot with a cheap 70-300 VR, probably on the D800. DR irrelevant, I wanted to convey the brightness and fun of these Hawaiian kids.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3772/9941780935_ce34627727_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sure, but I usually don't mention "the why" cause nobody usually asks.
But here goes and I'll try to limit it with available light imagery.
(All but one image is cropped for a video presentation)
Thanks for the post BC. Very nice work. Very nice approach to it all.
-
Hi,
In my view, cameras are enabling technology. Excellent pictures can be taken by almost any camera. But, cameras can have features that extend usability, some examples:
- The ability to use extreme telephoto or ultrawide lenses
- The ability to use tilt for Scheimpflug and/or shifts
- Small pixels maximise pixels on target when shooting distant small objects (like animals)
- Subject following AF may be essential in some cases
- High ISO capability allows for existing light shooting in the darks
- High DR gives options to expose for maintaining highlight and still have clean darks
- Large formats can collect more photons, given enough light, and therefore can have less noise
- Larger formats make lesser demands on lenses, but small formats can have very good lenses. Some 4/3 lenses may be extremely good and the Fuji lenses for their APS-C platforms are very good, AFAIK.
- More pixels allow for larger prints. To relate to my experience I would say I see little difference between say 24 MP and 39 MP in A2 size, and I have also seen little difference between 16MP and 24 MP at A2. On the other hand I have been told by a professional printer that there is a significant advantage of 36 MP over 16 MP when compared side to side on glossy paper at A2. Anyway, I feel it is possible to print decent sizes from todays APS-C and 4/3 cameras with proper technique. But, more MP will always be beneficial for larger prints. I would also say that very few aspects of image quality can be demonstrated with web size JPEGs.
- High FPS can be needed for capturing action, even if some photographers can predict action and do fine without high FPS.
- For many kinds of photography short flash sync times are necessary, for some cases leaf shutters are needed. But, I have seen planty of action stopping photographs with DSLRs.
- The ability to do focus stepping on some cameras may be very beneficial for macro shots.
The list above is just a few features that may be beneficial in different situations. No camera is a jack of all trades but some can do a credible job in many cases.
Best regards
Erik
-
Bernard
Sometime back in this thread you mention that you use focus stacking and stitching to make the photo. Could you please share with us your method in the field and in post. For me at least, insights into craft and illustrations of craft are what make forum discussions useful.
Thanks for your post
-
Bernard
Sometime back in this thread you mention that you use focus stacking and stitching to make the photo. Could you please share with us your method in the field and in post. For me at least, insights into craft and illustrations of craft are what make forum discussions useful.
Hi Claude,
This is the same technique I described in the article I wrote recently.
I use a RRS panohead, take 4-6 images with different focus points at each pano location. I then use Helicon focus to create an infinite DoF image at each pano location, then in this case Autopano pro to stitch these infinite DoF images together.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, have you switched from PTGui to Autopano Pro?
-
Bernard
Just reread your article. To clarify, at the basic focus stack/stitch you focus stack each pano tile. In other words if you were making a single row, three tile/frame pano, starting on tile one you focus stack that tile. Then rotate, focus stack tile two. Then rotate, focus stack tile three. OR do you focus, rotate/expose tile one, rotate/expose tile two, rotate/expose tile three. Refocus and repeat.
Thanks for the article. The techniques described open more doors of expression.
-
Bernard, have you switched from PTGui to Autopano Pro?
Hi David,
No, I continue to use both on a case by case basis. The article published recently gives some visibility about the typical selection criteria.
Among the 3 images initially posted in this thread, the first one was stitched with PTgui, the other 2 with Autopano pro. I would probably mostly use PTgui for such scenes if it did a better job with automatic pano alignement.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard
Just reread your article. To clarify, at the basic focus stack/stitch you focus stack each pano tile. In other words if you were making a single row, three tile/frame pano, starting on tile one you focus stack that tile. Then rotate, focus stack tile two. Then rotate, focus stack tile three. OR do you focus, rotate/expose tile one, rotate/expose tile two, rotate/expose tile three. Refocus and repeat.
Thanks for the article. The techniques described open more doors of expression.
Claude,
For image 2 I used the first technique. For image 3 I used the second technique as it is a 4-5 rows pano with little front/rear depth (but still some, foreground is probably 1km away, Mt Fuji is more than 100kms away).
Cheers,
Bernard