Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: [Fiction story] Nikon announces the 6DII  (Read 7392 times)

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 656
Re: [Fiction story] Nikon announces the 6DII
« Reply #20 on: July 20, 2017, 06:56:03 pm »

First dual pixel AF sensor late 2013...

First plus 50 mega pixel full frame 2015... If you want to include pixel density on the front end...

First full frame dual pixel AF sensor 2016...

2012 back end of the Analog stage of the sensor, yep... Albeit it has the extra dual pixel circuit...  :D

With regard to 2000 dollars... That is the issue, photo gear is insanely expensive... I am sure the price will come down

All full frame cameras have larger sensor lower yeld production costs. It is a shame they cannot get the price down...

Yeh, but what have they done for me lately...laid a rotten egg named as the 6D2. Bunch of old tech rebaggaged into a new camera...yawn!
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5371
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: [Fiction story] Nikon announces the 6DII
« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2017, 03:42:59 am »

Yeh, but what have they done for me lately...laid a rotten egg named as the 6D2. Bunch of old tech rebaggaged into a new camera...yawn!

Canon have been doing this for more than a decade, and apparently the "old tech" is still more than good enough to keep them in the top position. Apparently, Canon's "old tech" is pretty good, except for those that wish to boost shadows 5 stops just because.

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 656
Re: [Fiction story] Nikon announces the 6DII
« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2017, 11:16:16 am »

Canon have been doing this for more than a decade, and apparently the "old tech" is still more than good enough to keep them in the top position. Apparently, Canon's "old tech" is pretty good, except for those that wish to boost shadows 5 stops just because.

If you judge quality by the number sold.. then I guess you much prefer eating at McDonald's rather than the brew pub.
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: [Fiction story] Nikon announces the 6DII
« Reply #23 on: July 21, 2017, 09:28:52 pm »

My $2,000.00 goes to a TS-E 24 II to put on the old 6D.
Logged

scooby70

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 471
Re: [Fiction story] Nikon announces the 6DII
« Reply #24 on: July 23, 2017, 04:15:44 am »

Ok, so at low ISO, if you need to boost the shadows by +3EV, you start to see noise. I have used 5DII and 6D in the past, I shoot travel and landscape, and never had to do that. I just learned to expose properly.

At higher ISO, the problem goes away.

Rubbish.

Do you really believe this?

I don't know if my patience is wearing thin these days but it does seem that the quality of posting on this site is reaching DPR levels now.
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5371
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: [Fiction story] Nikon announces the 6DII
« Reply #25 on: July 24, 2017, 06:47:01 am »

If you judge quality by the number sold.. then I guess you much prefer eating at McDonald's rather than the brew pub.

Neither for me thanks. I don't like big M and I don't like pub food.

As for number sold versus quality: numbers sold are auditable and factual, quality is subjective and dependent on one's purse.

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5371
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: [Fiction story] Nikon announces the 6DII
« Reply #26 on: July 24, 2017, 06:51:16 am »

Rubbish.

Do you really believe this?

I don't know if my patience is wearing thin these days but it does seem that the quality of posting on this site is reaching DPR levels now.

Yes I do. I used to shoot Velvia slide film 25 years ago, it's a great learning experience. You replied by insulting me, fine, it's your choice.

I can show many images I shot with the 6D that were fine, thank you very much. Again, unless you need to regularly boost your shadows by 3 or 5 stops, the 6D is a fine camera.

In my case, to avoid boosting the shadows that much, I just learned to expose properly. Could be rubbish, but it worked, and works, fine for me.

Bernard ODonovan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
Re: [Fiction story] Nikon announces the 6DII
« Reply #27 on: July 24, 2017, 05:57:52 pm »

As this is a Nikon fiction thread, it is only fitting we check in to see how they are celebrating their new 6DII...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hQPlPP6mWVA

 :D
Logged

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 656
Re: [Fiction story] Nikon announces the 6DII
« Reply #28 on: July 24, 2017, 06:33:20 pm »

Yes I do. I used to shoot Velvia slide film 25 years ago, it's a great learning experience. You replied by insulting me, fine, it's your choice.

I can show many images I shot with the 6D that were fine, thank you very much. Again, unless you need to regularly boost your shadows by 3 or 5 stops, the 6D is a fine camera.

In my case, to avoid boosting the shadows that much, I just learned to expose properly. Could be rubbish, but it worked, and works, fine for me.

Please enlighten us with your secrets to exposing a scene which has a dynamic range greater than what your camera can handle. You either have to use GND filters which are troublesome if your light area is not a straight line or you can shoot multiple exposures and merge in post, which has problems when your subject is moving.

You keep mentioning you learned to expose properly...please elaborate on this some more.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12426
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: [Fiction story] Nikon announces the 6DII
« Reply #29 on: July 24, 2017, 08:36:14 pm »

Paul is right.

It is possible to take great images with 4 stops of DR, we've been doing this with slides for years.

Now, the trick is not just to expose right, it is to shoot less, a lot less.

The trick is to give up on perhaps 50% of the shooting opportunities provided by cameras with more DR, just like slides forced us to give up on all these opportunities negatives provided.

However, digital makes it easy to process any scene as if it had been shot with slides, which kills the main downside negatives had compared to slides, so I personnally prefer to shoot with modern digital equipment unless it has major other issues.

Just like I prefer to shoot with a color camera in raw. I prefer to limit myself as little as possible at the time of capture. Why do I use a D5 then? Because it's AF is so superior that it compensates for its low ISO DR weaknesses for what I do withit. Besides its amazing AWB and very accurate/consustent metering mitigates further somewhat its DR weakness.

I personnally don't get why anyone would want to pick a 6DII except for its price compared to a 5DIV (arguably quite over priced for what it offers, but...) because there is nothing it does better. If I had little budget I wouldn't remain a Canon user much longer because I would see the obvious. Canon decided to use DR against me to force me to spend 3,500 $ to buy a 5DIV while other brands give their lower end customers access to their best sensor technology at reasonnable price oiints.

Cheers,
Bernard

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5371
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: [Fiction story] Nikon announces the 6DII
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2017, 05:09:35 am »

Please enlighten us with your secrets to exposing a scene which has a dynamic range greater than what your camera can handle. You either have to use GND filters which are troublesome if your light area is not a straight line or you can shoot multiple exposures and merge in post, which has problems when your subject is moving.

You keep mentioning you learned to expose properly...please elaborate on this some more.

Someone better than myself already explained (see Bernard's post above). Other than that, I can recommend some books from which I learned almost 20 years ago. They are by John Shaw, who at the time shot with Nikon and used slide film. Or you can take a basic course on photography.

If you shoot slide film, you need to learn to expose properly, everybody knows that. Slide film exposure latitude is unforgiving, but fantastic images by many photographers are witness to that. From 2002 and 2009 I worked in Oman, and shot slide film on that beautiful country; if you are interested, you can visit my website and check my Oman portfolio.

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5371
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: [Fiction story] Nikon announces the 6DII
« Reply #31 on: July 25, 2017, 05:36:08 am »

Please enlighten us with your secrets to exposing a scene which has a dynamic range greater than what your camera can handle. You either have to use GND filters which are troublesome if your light area is not a straight line or you can shoot multiple exposures and merge in post, which has problems when your subject is moving.

You keep mentioning you learned to expose properly...please elaborate on this some more.

Here is an interesting story about how a Nikon D3 (same landscape DR as the 6D, according to DXO - around 12 EV) was used to make the cover of NatGeo:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4139659692/this-nat-geo-cover-was-shot-with-a-10-year-old-dslr-and-an-iphone-flashlight

For those who learned on slide film, 12 EV sounds like a dream come true:)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21665
Re: [Fiction story] Nikon announces the 6DII
« Reply #32 on: July 25, 2017, 06:29:13 am »

Someone better than myself already explained (see Bernard's post above). Other than that, I can recommend some books from which I learned almost 20 years ago. They are by John Shaw, who at the time shot with Nikon and used slide film. Or you can take a basic course on photography.

If you shoot slide film, you need to learn to expose properly, everybody knows that. Slide film exposure latitude is unforgiving, but fantastic images by many photographers are witness to that. From 2002 and 2009 I worked in Oman, and shot slide film on that beautiful country; if you are interested, you can visit my website and check my Oman portfolio.

John Shaw. Yes, a great landscape, nature, close-up and and technical photographer too. And he is also able to explain, in writing, what he knows. I have three of his books, including one on business, and he understands of what he writes.

I'd recommend his books to anyone.

Rob

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 656
Re: [Fiction story] Nikon announces the 6DII
« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2017, 09:07:41 am »

Someone better than myself already explained (see Bernard's post above). Other than that, I can recommend some books from which I learned almost 20 years ago. They are by John Shaw, who at the time shot with Nikon and used slide film. Or you can take a basic course on photography.

If you shoot slide film, you need to learn to expose properly, everybody knows that. Slide film exposure latitude is unforgiving, but fantastic images by many photographers are witness to that. From 2002 and 2009 I worked in Oman, and shot slide film on that beautiful country; if you are interested, you can visit my website and check my Oman portfolio.

Paul, guess what. John Shaw used GND filters extensively. Why...did he not know how to expose properly? He used them because the scene's dynamic range exceeded the film's dynamic range and he wanted to tone down the bright areas so he would not blow them out.

There is NO magical way of exposing if the scene exceeds the dynamic range of your film or sensor. You keep mentioning proper exposure, but you evade my request of detailing this proper exposure when the scene's range is much greater than what your limited DR camera can handle.

What Bernard said was you ended up skipping scenes where the dynamic range is too great. Is that how you properly expose...you just walk away from challenging light?

I'm still calling BS on proper exposure handles all DR issues.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21665
Re: [Fiction story] Nikon announces the 6DII
« Reply #34 on: July 25, 2017, 05:14:51 pm »

Paul, guess what. John Shaw used GND filters extensively. Why...did he not know how to expose properly? He used them because the scene's dynamic range exceeded the film's dynamic range and he wanted to tone down the bright areas so he would not blow them out.

There is NO magical way of exposing if the scene exceeds the dynamic range of your film or sensor. You keep mentioning proper exposure, but you evade my request of detailing this proper exposure when the scene's range is much greater than what your limited DR camera can handle.

What Bernard said was you ended up skipping scenes where the dynamic range is too great. Is that how you properly expose...you just walk away from challenging light?

I'm still calling BS on proper exposure handles all DR issues.


No, that's neither quite right nor fair.

There certainly is a thing called proper exposure. And it depends entirely upon the job you're trying to do.

I shot Kodachrome professionally for many, many years, and it suited my work perfectly, not only due to its colour plan, but to another vital property: it travelled much better than any other colour film I ever tried out. As long as I kept it in a cooler bag, out of direct sunlight, it didn't really requĦre processing all that soon after exposure; two or three weeks on location wasn't a problem.

Yes, it didn't have as wide a DR as digital seems to have, but even digital's DR isn't infinite, so one's just talking about relativities here - not perfection. One worked within the parameters of the material, and if anything, the way that tones were recorded or lost was a contributing factor to the look one could get, how shadows would look relative to highlights. Hell, if everything's recorded equally well, then how flat it all gets to seem. So this thing about huge DR's a bit of a manufacturer's game, a selling point that may actually be counterproductive: have you never seen anybody complain here about a subject looking too HDR'd?

As I indicated, it all comes down to how well you know your materials and what you have or want to do. Were that not so, there would have been no marvellous photography pre-digital, which is patently nonsense, and I suggest much of it was "better" than what goes down today.

Rob

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 656
Re: [Fiction story] Nikon announces the 6DII
« Reply #35 on: July 25, 2017, 05:28:43 pm »


No, that's neither quite right nor fair.

There certainly is a thing called proper exposure. And it depends entirely upon the job you're trying to do.

I shot Kodachrome professionally for many, many years, and it suited my work perfectly, not only due to its colour plan, but to another vital property: it travelled much better than any other colour film I ever tried out. As long as I kept it in a cooler bag, out of direct sunlight, it didn't really requĦre processing all that soon after exposure; two or three weeks on location wasn't a problem.

Yes, it didn't have as wide a DR as digital seems to have, but even digital's DR isn't infinite, so one's just talking about relativities here - not perfection. One worked within the parameters of the material, and if anything, the way that tones were recorded or lost was a contributing factor to the look one could get, how shadows would look relative to highlights. Hell, if everything's recorded equally well, then how flat it all gets to seem. So this thing about huge DR's a bit of a manufacturer's game, a selling point that may actually be counterproductive: have you never seen anybody complain here about a subject looking too HDR'd?

As I indicated, it all comes down to how well you know your materials and what you have or want to do. Were that not so, there would have been no marvellous photography pre-digital, which is patently nonsense, and I suggest much of it was "better" than what goes down today.

Rob

Rob, sure great photos were made 50 years ago...so what. I shot chrome for years, both 35mm and medium format and still use film cameras ( Fuji 6x9 and Tach 4x5 ) and I know there are huge limitations when using chrome...and a lot of those limitations are due to it's very poor dynamic range. When shooting landscapes with chrome ( I didn't use much Velvia as the colours were just too over the top ), I almost always had to use GND filters to tame down the exposure range in the scene. This had problems when the horizon was not straight or other things sticking into the bright areas. Many scenes I just walked away from knowing the chrome film just could not capture what I wanted.

Today, with the expanded DR in the latest cameras, I have reduced using GND filters ( or merging multiple exposures ) by I'd say at least 75%...which is a good thing. I also shoot in much more challenging exposure conditions because I know my camera can handle the dramatic range.

I equate having much more DR today as having great high ISO abilities. Fifty years ago we made photos taken in dark venues using flash and strobes...today we can just pump up the ISO and shoot a much more natural scene. The same is true with cameras that have expanded DR abilities...it just makes photography simpler and allows shooting in more situations.

I don't understand this argument against expanded dynamic range sensors...sounds more like spilt milk since one's cameras don't have it so they make up excuses why its not needed. Yeh...expose correctly is a bunch of BS...once you hit the brick wall, there is no magic...only crappy blown highlights or black featureless shadows.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2579
Re: [Fiction story] Nikon announces the 6DII
« Reply #36 on: July 27, 2017, 01:35:24 pm »


No, that's neither quite right nor fair.

There certainly is a thing called proper exposure. And it depends entirely upon the job you're trying to do.

I shot Kodachrome professionally for many, many years, and it suited my work perfectly, not only due to its colour plan, but to another vital property: it travelled much better than any other colour film I ever tried out. As long as I kept it in a cooler bag, out of direct sunlight, it didn't really requĦre processing all that soon after exposure; two or three weeks on location wasn't a problem.

Yes, it didn't have as wide a DR as digital seems to have, but even digital's DR isn't infinite, so one's just talking about relativities here - not perfection. One worked within the parameters of the material, and if anything, the way that tones were recorded or lost was a contributing factor to the look one could get, how shadows would look relative to highlights. Hell, if everything's recorded equally well, then how flat it all gets to seem. So this thing about huge DR's a bit of a manufacturer's game, a selling point that may actually be counterproductive: have you never seen anybody complain here about a subject looking too HDR'd?

As I indicated, it all comes down to how well you know your materials and what you have or want to do. Were that not so, there would have been no marvellous photography pre-digital, which is patently nonsense, and I suggest much of it was "better" than what goes down today.

Rob

You didn't answer the question.

What is your definition of 'proper exposure' when the DR in the scene exceeds the DR of your recording medium?

Do you expose for the highlights and leave the shadows as detailless, black blobs? Or do you expose for the shadows, blowing the highlights? Do you split the difference and aim for the midtones, blowing smaller areas of both highlights and shadows? Or do you just walk away and not shoot at all?

A common enough scenario in landscape photography, and one that can't always be solved by filters (uneven horizons and increased vignetting) or HDR (movement).

As for badly-tonemapped images with too much midtone compression, that has nothing to do with HDR, or even dynamic range, and everything to do with bad tonemapping. I could make a single exposure with 3 stops of DR look like that if I wanted to. In fact, most photos would somewhat look like that with a linear response curve.

Every digital image needs to be tonemapped. You don't normally have to think about it because the RAW converter does it automatically, and you don't normally get midtone-compressed images because most converters apply pretty good tonemapping curves. People run into trouble when merging HDR files because they then have to create a curve manually and actually think about the structure of the curve and where their highlights, midtones and shadows are, instead of just applying an automatic setting. Done properly, an HDR image looks no different from a distance than a non-HDR image, except, once you get closer, you can see that the shadows aren't just featureless blobs of black, but areas with as much detail and texture as the rest of the image.

I could easily put up a number of HDR and non-HDR images here and you'd never know which one was which.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up