Choosing the Right Camera System

[BernardLanguillier]

BTW:

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/11/02/nikon-d750-camera-review-and-comparison-with-the-d810.aspx/#more-82726
http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review

This matches my view after having now shot around 1,000 frames with the D750 vs the D810. I end up carrying the D750 a lot more for "generic" shooting. I must confess that I was not really a believer in tilted screens till now, but they are very useful and a tremendous contributor to creative shooting with wider lenses! Olympus was right all along.

The main issue with the D750 right now is that it isn't supported by C1 Pro 8 yet.

It would probably be good for Nick to look for similar reviews written by Canon wedding shooters.

Cheers,
Bernard

[allegretto]

sorry Bernard all good by me. I just looked at the first page of DxO and didn't drill too deep, my bad. I really like Sensorgen because I like the methodology and the actual data. I guess I just reflexively recoil at things like DxO or (gulp) dpreview who try to reduce something as rich and complex as a cameras dynamic characteristics to a couple of simplistic indexes.

Don't know how many feel but I'm sure I could use any brand and get comparable results from similarly designed models. It's the nuances that sometimes don't lend them selves to quantitative analysis that make real differences to me as well as the numbers.

Allegretto,

DxO has DR curves showing DR as a function of ISO. I don't see what is lacking nuance about their results.

The 1Dx clearly leaves the Olympus in the dust at higher ISOs.

Certainly. This isn't a Canon vs Nikon discussion as far as I am concerned.

Cheers,
Bernard

[allegretto]

Happily the A7s is and this is an amazing walk-around all-court player... and is covered by C1

It's really great when a product just makes your mind race with the possibilities that simply were not open before.

[BernardLanguillier]

Don't know how many feel but I'm sure I could use any brand and get comparable results from similarly designed models. It's the nuances that sometimes don't lend them selves to quantitative analysis that make real differences to me as well as the numbers.

Well, talented photographer can clearly produce winning images with basically any camera. Besides, the more "creative" your work is, the less relevant the technical aspects.

I certainly agree that there is no universally superior camera, but I do think that there are differences and that some bodies are superior for some applications.

Among all rounders, the 5DIII and D750 stand out in my book.

Cheers,
Bernard

[allegretto]

wait... what...

5DIII...!!!  surely you mean.... "...for wedding photographers..."... no?

Well, talented photographer can clearly produce winning images with basically any camera. Besides, the more "creative" your work is, the less relevant the technical aspects.

I certainly agree that there is no universally superior camera, but I do think that there are differences and that some bodies are superior for some applications.

Among all rounders, the 5DIII and D750 stand out in my book.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

wait... what...

5DIII...!!!  surely you mean.... "...for wedding photographers..."... no?

Yes, I mean cameras doing everything pretty well. Indeed, wedding is a very good measure of that (including flash photography).

Cheers,
Bernard
 

[bcooter]

What surprises me is you statement about the DR of Oly vs. 1Dx

What were your parameters?

I rarely have done this, and don't judge this image for artistic merit, as the scene is from a motion shoot where we shot tight on different cutaways.

Anyway, we intentionally let the windows blow, because the bg was under construction and working tight looked good, but since I had a break after this shot I did about 10 frames with the 1dx and 10 with the em-5.

Working out of lightroom, I couldn't pull any detail from the windows of the 1dx and the em-5 not much more . . . but some.



It surprised me also.

Now the em-5 is not a workhorse camera and I bought it just because I like it, bought the em-1 thinking it would be better.

The em-1 is a better camera, but not a better sensor or whatever causes the look and not just dr or numbers (know very little about dxo or any of those sites because I don't care) but the look of the em-5 when shot properly is quite pretty, the em-1 is very dslr looking.

But the em-1 is really one nicely put together camera.   If you hold a Sony A series next to an em-1 you'd think the Sony was the unfinished prototype in build quality.

That's not an indichtment against the Sony, or for the olympus, just MY observation and all of this is quite personal.

In fact I loved the thought of the A7 series, having high iso for motion, high rez for stills, but for the life of me just can't warm up to the cameras, as they are missing some functions I need.

Actually in regards to NIkon, or any brand fixation, until the d800 I've always owned Nikon equipment, but got so turned off by the fan boys, I wouldn't buy one.

I know that's not rational, but who said rational was right?


IMO

BC

[Guillermo Luijk]

I just looked at the first page of DxO and didn't drill too deep, my bad. I really like Sensorgen because I like the methodology and the actual data. I guess I just reflexively recoil at things like DxO or (gulp) dpreview who try to reduce something as rich and complex as a cameras dynamic characteristics to a couple of simplistic indexes.

This only happens if the observer doesn't care of looking at all the information DxO provides. In other words it's your fault not DxO's.

In fact they used to provide the complete SNR curves, see here:



That predict SNR for any ISO and any RAW level (the DR figure could be calculated from those curves with any threshold SNR desired criteria, for instance a much more practical for photographers SNR=12dB than the currently used SNR=0dB engineering value).

They probably stopped publishing these graphs when other sites like Sensorgen started to used these detailed data to obtain extra sensor parameters.

Regards

[BernardLanguillier]

Actually in regards to NIkon, or any brand fixation, until the d800 I've always owned Nikon equipment, but got so turned off by the fan boys, I wouldn't buy one.

I know that's not rational, but who said rational was right?

That's the beautiful thing about art, it isn't about reason!

It is hard to be stop being influenced by emotions when thinking equipment while emotions are a key driving force of the creative process relying on those pieces of equipment.

What's the problem with that?

You are the perfect example proving that a talented photographer can shoot with pretty much any camera and still get first class results.

Cheers,
Bernard

[NancyP]

You want to see sheer emotion - go to the build-it-yourself board on the Large Format forum.

[Telecaster]

…until the d800 I've always owned Nikon equipment, but got so turned off by the fan boys, I wouldn't buy one.

I know that's not rational, but who said rational was right?

When it comes to photo gear I almost always go by impulse, both in the buying and the day-to-day using. In much of the rest of my life this would lead to disaster, but for photography and travel it works out great.   

-Dave-

[Chrisso26]

+1
I generally watch user feedback, and maybe read the odd revue. I've never bought anything based on a spec sheet or mathematical analysis on a website like DxO.
Each to their own though (absolutely).

[Jim Pascoe]

The first one (and many others on Flickr) was challenging technically for 3 reasons:
- focus: these horses move as fast as they can (meaning about 15-20 m/sec), and the horse itself can interfere with the rider. The field of view was obstucted in parts to the left (these events get incredibly crowded) which prevented me from adding TC to the 400mm f2.8 to increase the distance,
- timing: there was only a 5-6m space with good light through trees, through which the running horses went in about 0.25-0.3 sec, you need 6 img/sec to be sure to get it right,
- Exposure: there was about 2.5 stop difference btwn the location with good light and what was there 5m left, and light was fluctuating because of the play of clouds.

Cheers,
Bernard

Which just goes to prove it's what's behind the camera that is the key ingredient.

Jim

[Nick Walt]

You want to see sheer emotion - go to the build-it-yourself board on the Large Format forum.

Nancy, do you have a specific discussion in mind?

[BernardLanguillier]

Which just goes to prove it's what's behind the camera that is the key ingredient.

Jim

Thank you, but I think that the camera's AF played a key role here.

I don't believe that D610/6D class cameras would have allowed me to capture the scene the way I wanted too. A 5DIII/1DX/D4s certainly would have.

Back to Nick's question, this isn't the Canon vs Nikon discussion that a few posters have attempted to turn this into, but it doesn't mean that the 6D and D750 belong to the same category. Just like the 6D and 5DIII aren't in the same category either.

That has been the point all along and I would have made the same comments had Nick told us that he prefers the sound of the zoom button on the 6D compared to that of the 5DIII and identified that as a sign that the guys at Canon designing the low end FF bodies are the brightest bunch within Canon. I would have answered him the same way... which is that the AF of the 5DIII is an order of magnitude more important than the sound of a button.

Cheers,
Bernard

[fdisilvestro]

They [DXO Mark] probably stopped publishing these graphs when other sites like Sensorgen started to used these detailed data to obtain extra sensor parameters.

Regards

I don't know what you mean, I can see these graphs in the DXO Mark site, even for recent cameras such as the Nikon D810 and D750. (sometimes they take forever to load)

[NancyP]

No, it is just evident that there is no pride in using a camera like the pride of a photographer who built his own camera. Labors of love!

[BernardLanguillier]

No, it is just evident that there is no pride in using a camera like the pride of a photographer who built his own camera. Labors of love!

I would argue that having built a camera oneself is the only case when ownership should generate pride.

How could just having spent money to buy a good manufactured by somebody else generate pride is something I can't quite understand.

I can understand being proud in one's ability to make a good living in our tough world, but the material symbols deriving from this are not legitimate objects of pride in my view.

Being proud of images generated with a camera does make sense, but to me that's the sole and only role a camera plays and the selection of a camera should only be based on its ability to generate optimally the images one intends to capture (and yes, that includes of course the usability of the camera body).

Cheers,
Bernard

[Manoli]

How could having spent money to buy a good manufactured by somebody else generate pride is something I can't quite understand.

Well don't say that too loudly, Bernard, if people listen to you, you'll destroy one of the motivating forces of the free economy. It's called 'pride-of-ownership' and that's what so many advertisers play on when they try and persuade us to buy their (luxury) products.

It extends from iPhones to pens, handbags, cars, yachts, private jets - anything that could be considered a 'status symbol'. Sad but true.

Indulging in semantics, I'd suggest that, with the exception of jpegs, images are not 'generated' in camera, they're 'captured' in camera. More often than not, the images are generated by skill and technical competence, whether that was development and hand-made prints in the old analogue days or post-processing and printing in the digital domain today.

[BernardLanguillier]

Well don't say that too loudly, Bernard, if people listen to you, you'll destroy one of the motivating forces of the free economy. It's called 'pride-of-ownership' and that's what so many advertisers play on when they try and persuade us to buy their (luxury) products.

It extends from iPhones to pens, handbags, cars, yachts, private jets - anything that could be considered a 'status symbol'. Sad but true.

Exactly! But I would hope photographers to be smart enough to understand that this is merely ego flattering consumerist crap.

I guess that I still go by this romantic image of photographers being a superior bunch able to cast an objective look at the world surrounding them. Able to see not just through their viewfinder, but also through and beyond the things that they see.

BMW came up 15-20 years ago with an add campaign in the French speaking parts of Europe that said "L'echo de votre ego", which would translate into "echoeing your ego". That was so touchingly genuine and transparent in its messaging that it made me lough to no end!

Indulging in semantics, I'd suggest that, with the exception of jpegs, images are not 'generated' in camera, they're 'captured' in camera. More often than not, the images are generated by skill and technical competence, whether that was development and hand-made prints in the old analogue days or post-processing and printing in the digital domain today.

Indeed!

Cheers,
Bernard