Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: 1DsIII article -- overburn.  (Read 4396 times)

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2014
1DsIII article -- overburn.
« on: October 18, 2007, 11:05:30 pm »

I think Michael got a little overburned by the M8 controversy -- he protests too much. IMHO, it's unnecessary. Sane people don't expect perfection, but informed judgment is always welcome.

He obviously thinks the 1DsIII is an exceptional camera -- "...the Hassy stayed in its bag." It's also obvious that landscape photographers of a certain stripe can never be satisfied -- there will never be enough resolution, or enough DR. That's fine, and I understand that, too. But what I would *really* like to know is, if you were assigned to shoot top-quality double-truck spread of movie stars, standing in a group, where every face is important, with lights, in a studio, with all necessary assistants and equipment, for Vanity Fair...would it make any difference in the final published photograph whether you used a 1DsIII or a  P45? I understand it would make a difference if you were printing a 60x90, but how about  a top-quality magazine spread, but limited to magazine double-page size?

If the answer to that question is "No, it wouldn't make any real-world difference," then I think MF may be in deeper trouble yet.

Thom Hogan, by the way, on his website, is hinting that the next Nikon is going to be something weird. I don't know exactly what he is suggesting, except that he seems to expect something more than lots of pixels, but maybe a year or more out yet...


JC
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13723
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
1DsIII article -- overburn.
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2007, 01:18:59 am »

Quote
Thom Hogan, by the way, on his website, is hinting that the next Nikon is going to be something weird. I don't know exactly what he is suggesting, except that he seems to expect something more than lots of pixels, but maybe a year or more out yet...
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147095\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't know whether Thom knows for sure or not.

My guess is that he is hinting at a modular 35mm system accepting several different possible backs, including one with the current D3 sensor, and one with a higher definition (possibly Foveon type).

There have also been rumours of panoramic backs... who knows... I know more than a few people who would be very interested in a panoramic back in the 30MP range.

Cheers,
Bernard

macgyver

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 510
1DsIII article -- overburn.
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2007, 01:57:39 am »

I would love to see some sort of 6 or 8 MP full frame sensor with amazing high ISO performance.  Not much appeal here, but lots of folks would be interested in something like that for non landscape uses.
Logged

mahleu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 585
    • 500px
1DsIII article -- overburn.
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2007, 03:29:06 am »

Quote
I would love to see some sort of 6 or 8 MP full frame sensor with amazing high ISO performance.  Not much appeal here, but lots of folks would be interested in something like that for non landscape uses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147113\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It would be perfect for my stage work. A useable 3200 or 6400 occassionally would be very welcome.
Logged
________________________________________

sergio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
    • http://www.sergiobartelsman.com
1DsIII article -- overburn.
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2007, 07:09:53 pm »

Quote
I think Michael got a little overburned by the M8 controversy -- he protests too much. IMHO, it's unnecessary. Sane people don't expect perfection, but informed judgment is always welcome.

He obviously thinks the 1DsIII is an exceptional camera -- "...the Hassy stayed in its bag." It's also obvious that landscape photographers of a certain stripe can never be satisfied -- there will never be enough resolution, or enough DR. That's fine, and I understand that, too. But what I would *really* like to know is, if you were assigned to shoot top-quality double-truck spread of movie stars, standing in a group, where every face is important, with lights, in a studio, with all necessary assistants and equipment, for Vanity Fair...would it make any difference in the final published photograph whether you used a 1DsIII or a  P45? I understand it would make a difference if you were printing a 60x90, but how about  a top-quality magazine spread, but limited to magazine double-page size?

If the answer to that question is "No, it wouldn't make any real-world difference," then I think MF may be in deeper trouble yet.

Thom Hogan, by the way, on his website, is hinting that the next Nikon is going to be something weird. I don't know exactly what he is suggesting, except that he seems to expect something more than lots of pixels, but maybe a year or more out yet...
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147095\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I do stuff like what you describe with the current 1DsMII coupled with the finest optics, and yes I feel I would like something bigger especially for very clean dark shadows. Noise in the shadows is the big killer for me with this setup.

It is perfectly possibe to do this type of work with a Canon with excellent results. You just have to be very careful with exposure and your technique.What I do is I know exactly where I have to place my highlights without clipping in order to have the best possibe shadows. And if necessary I even rely on recovering highlights a little in conversion, but I try at all costs to avoid plugged shadows. I don't rely that much on he histogram and rather make sure with a good spot meter in the highlights. The histograms are so small that sometimes very small areas of the image you dont see them there and histograms are representations of an incamera JPEG conversion thus showing imprecise clipping. For very accurate results go with a fine meter you know well.
Be aware that landscape photographers and several photography can get away with some stuff that is not visible in prints, but clients and especially advertising agencies look at your images at 100% magnification and not always do they understand fully what is visble in aprint and what is not. We are talking something completely different here.

And I am not that crazy about small viewfinders.
Logged

madmanchan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2115
    • Web
1DsIII article -- overburn.
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2007, 07:30:38 pm »

You can always take a high MP FF camera like a 5D, 1Ds II (or now 1Ds III), shoot it at ISO 1600 and 3200, and downsample the images to 6-8 MP. That will filter out a lot of the noise.
Logged
Eric Chan

pss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 960
    • http://www.schefz.com
1DsIII article -- overburn.
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2007, 08:27:36 pm »

Quote
But what I would *really* like to know is, if you were assigned to shoot top-quality double-truck spread of movie stars, standing in a group, where every face is important, with lights, in a studio, with all necessary assistants and equipment, for Vanity Fair...would it make any difference in the final published photograph whether you used a 1DsIII or a  P45? I understand it would make a difference if you were printing a 60x90, but how about  a top-quality magazine spread, but limited to magazine double-page size?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147095\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

considering that annie leibovitz is shooting all her vanity fair stuff with a 1dsmkII (and probably with a mkIII now) i don't think it makes a difference.....it will make a difference if you can't afford her retoucher:)
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up