November 27, 2014, 08:17:38 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Orangutan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50
1
Photography Technique / Re: Game Ranches for photography
« on: November 19, 2014, 12:04:33 PM »
I'm not out to piddle in anyones pond, but I prefer to shoot in Mother nature. No additional costs, and availability is second to none - it's there when I'm ready.

I suppose. But, I'm increasingly wondering about the real differences.

<snip>

Yes, for me, I really enjoy seeing a red tail hawk circling overhead or a great blue heron fishing in the local lake, and I enjoy the challenge of capturing these animals on film. But, I also know that if I really want to get close up shots of herons or red tails, I'm better off traveling somewhere where there are a lot of them and they are more predictable.

It depends on why you're photographing, and what you intend for your photographs.  If it's for your own pleasure and benefit then it's up to you.  If it's for sale then my ethics would require full disclosure.  There's a HUGE difference between an up-close photo of a tiger in a game park vs. an up-close photo of a tiger from the back of an elephant in India vs. an up-close photo of a tiger when you've stalked the critter on foot, and there's nothing between you but a telephoto lens and a can of bear spray.

When selling photos, the TRUE STORY of how the photo was made is essential to an ethical transaction.  When photographing for yourself you're not fooling anyone, so go have fun.

3
*IF* Sony can deliver that, then where is Canon going to be left standing considering that its sensor is seriously lagging?
*IF* Sony can deliver that...and deliver a nice range of high-quality lenses to match...and deliver a full suite of accessories...and deliver solid long-term product support...and not go bankrupt, THEN Canon may have market-based incentive to improve IQ at low ISO, and that could be good for all of us.

Sony, alas, has a recent history of seriously imperfect product/customer support.  I can see pros and serious amateurs adding this to their kit, but not replacing their Canon or Nikon gear.

4
Seems like a long-winded way of saying "expose high, process low."  I already use this method when I have time, and I have one quibble with his explanation: the goal, for me at least, is not to put the brightest areas at 99+% exposure, but to put the brightest areas I care about at 99+% exposure.  In some cases I'm willing to allow some areas to blow-out, either because they're too small to affect the final image or because it's a trade-off I'm willing to make for the rest of the image.

And let me see if I can avoid derailment of the thread: sensor DR irrelevant here because no matter how much DR you have (current sensor tech) you can still apply these principles to optimize your exposure.  Can we please not argue about sensor DR in this thread?

5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 17, 2014, 09:58:31 AM »
   
  • In general, the more expensive the (digital) camera, the more abuse it can take without losing function.
I would not want to take a Hassy out in the damp dirty woods. More expensive does not necessarly mean more rugged.


I've never used one, but a previous poster asserted that Hasselblads were quite durable.

Of course, if you have a Hassy, you probably also have two assistants to set up a tent and hold umbrellas, right?   :P

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 17, 2014, 09:21:25 AM »
Canon's websites which break down pro vs. enthusiast bodies list the 6D among the latter.  Arbitrary marketing decisions.

This.

I've seen a fair number of assertions on this forum that the 1D-series are Canon's only pro bodies, and the 5D-series and below are consumer or prosumer cameras.  There's no dispute that more expensive models in the product line tend to have better features on average.  The question, however, is whether there are certain specific characteristics which distinguish a "pro" camera from a "consumer" camera.  So far just two assertions seem to have gone unrefuted:

  • Pros seem to be able to make a living with a range of cameras, from smartphones to FF to MFD to large format film.  A photographer's needs will determine which is the appropriate tool.
  • In general, the more expensive the (digital) camera, the more abuse it can take without losing function.



7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 04:27:04 PM »
My point is that "pro" (or "pro-level" or "pro-targeted") is a characteristic of the camera and not the person using it. The user doesn't determine whether a camera is a "pro camera" any more than the camera determines whether the user is a pro. I think that we would all agree that a 1DX is a "pro camera",

I get your point; however, the reason I disagree with your conclusion is that there's no objective criteria to separate pro from non-pro.  At the extremes, e.g. 1DX vs Rebel, we will probably agree.  But what about in the middle?

In the end, it devolves into the famous Potter Stewart test.

Which camera would a professional choose today:
EOS-1D or Rebel T5i

6D or 7DMkII?

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 02:55:55 PM »
My point is that "pro" (or "pro-level" or "pro-targeted") is a characteristic of the camera and not the person using it. The user doesn't determine whether a camera is a "pro camera" any more than the camera determines whether the user is a pro. I think that we would all agree that a 1DX is a "pro camera",

I get your point; however, the reason I disagree with your conclusion is that there's no objective criteria to separate pro from non-pro.  At the extremes, e.g. 1DX vs Rebel, we will probably agree.  But what about in the middle?

In the end, it devolves into the famous Potter Stewart test.

9
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 11:40:11 AM »
If the gear doesn't matter, then I change my 1100d for your 1Dx  :P

No one said gear doesn't matter.  The point is that there is no objective, indisputable definition of the dividing line between pro and non-pro gear.  Therefore, the only thing that can be said is that any camera used by a competent pro for professional work is a pro camera.

10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 11:31:41 AM »
The features. Pro cameras have advanced features that pros need and/or know how to take advantage of. Manufacturers generally have more than one "pro" camera because there is more than one kind of pro and they may need different (but overlapping) sets of features. These include things like:

- high durability
- high frame rate
- high performance, highly configurable AF
- mirror lockup
- high dynamic range
- better noise performance
- 100% viewfinder
- usability features (e.g. extra buttons/wheels/etc. that make it fast and easy to change settings

Does a pro body need all of them?  Some of them?  Certain specific combinations? 


Quote
Saying "the person behind the camera" is glib, but wrong.

No, it's a way of saying that each pro needs a different subset of the features you have in your list above, and that each pro will choose a camera that meets their needs.

I once met a pro photojournalist who used to travel to unstable areas.  He would take several cheap DLSRs because he knew one or more would be taken from him (requested).  He'd pull out (and hide) his flash cards frequently, and be prepared to surrender the camera.  It was his choice to use cheap gear because in the end he'd have his photos.

"the person behind the camera" is the one who chooses the right tool for the job, and uses it to produce professional work.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Variable Diffusion Focusing Screen
« on: October 15, 2014, 09:30:03 AM »
That kind of detailed focus info would require a lot of data -- wouldn't this make sense only if there are a very large number of focus detection points?

12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 09:24:27 AM »
Generally speaking, a manufacturers top of the range product is aimed at pros. Take knives, pans, laptops (the business lines), and I presume microscopes etc.
The top end is aimed at people who are willing and able to pay the higher price.

I think we're having another one of those "is" vs "ought" arguments.

The "is" group asserts (and I agree) that a high-end camera is largely bought by people willing to pay for it, most of whom will not use it for professional work.

The "ought" group asserts that a high-end camera ought to be built and marketed to professionals, and it's fine if wealthy amateurs also want to buy one.

I don't believe there's a clear definition of a pro camera, but I'm pretty sure Canon has a pro marketing department.   :P

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 08:45:39 AM »
It has to be able to take that abuse and keep working, same for lenses. It also has to function satisfactorily under stressful, rushed situations.

Is a Hasselblad MFD a "pro" camera?  Does it meet your above criteria?  If the answer the first is yes, and to the second is no, then your criteria may be indicative, but are not definitive.

14
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 07:02:25 AM »
I think manufacturers decide which are the pro models, whether it be a set of knives, a camera or laptop (though in the latter they are called business models rather than pro).
But what criteria do they use to make that determination? 

Quote
The manufacturer sets the pro level
Quote
But generally speaking it is the best overall performance and life of product etc.

These seem like two distinct, sometimes contradictory criteria.  The first one is purely marketing, meaning there's not really any objective criterion.  The second seems vague.  These criteria are more likely to tell us useful information about the marketing department than the products.

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 01:10:11 AM »
I think manufacturers decide which are the pro models, whether it be a set of knives, a camera or laptop (though in the latter they are called business models rather than pro).

But what criteria do they use to make that determination?  For any pro criterion you choose I can probably find a counter-example.  About the only criteria I can think of that might have no exceptions would be profit margin and level of support from the manufacturer.  Here are some proposed criteria and why each doesn't hold.

Image quality: 6D arguably has equal/better IQ compared to 1DX

Physical toughness: Pro studio photographers don't need this (e.g. MFD)

Speed: Pro landscape or studio photographers don't need this (e.g. MFD)

You get the idea.






Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50