A few of mine, all shot with 5DII & 24-105L. First one S E England, last two N W in Lake District
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.
I'll never buy a Sony camera so long as they use a lossy compressed file format. Maybe that's just more of the high standards crap...I dunno. But, there it is.
You'll never buy a camera that's relatively cheap ($1,300 for the A7), can use your lenses, and solves the problem which you have spent countless hours making...hundreds?...thousands?...of posts about because of a file format that maybe, on rare occasion, might result in an artifact, even though otherwise the camera completely eliminates the noise and artifacts you're so upset about???
I'm done...I'm out...no more SoNikonSuperMegaDR threads. I can't help these people. They need therapists, not sensors.
The 5D II was the most popular landscape DSLR on the planet until the D800 came along.
Glass has gotten better, film no longer exits.
Speak for yourself, I ran a roll of Kodak through my Pentax MX last week It is excellent DSLR detox
The 1D was an APS-H body with an electronic shutter.I wonder why canon packed older cameras with some very useful features that are totally absent in modern cameras. Here I refer to the Canon EOS 1D released in 2001 vs modern professional canon cameras.
I refer strictly to:
1/16,000 shutter speed
X-sync speed 1/500
I would think its to do with it being APS, smaller, lighter shutter, less distance to travel etc. Not on modern pro APS now due to cost / usage considerations I would think.
I wonder why canon packed older cameras with some very useful features that are totally absent in modern cameras. Here I refer to the Canon EOS 1D released in 2001 vs modern professional canon cameras.
I refer strictly to:
1/16,000 shutter speed
X-sync speed 1/500
I don't think anyone would say no to more DR. As I've said previously, there are occasions I've found DR limiting...but in the vast majority of those, two more stops would not have been enough.
This is really another red herring. It doesn't matter if two more stops of DR isn't enough...it's still significant, and it simplifies whatever else you have to do to deal with any excess DR. In my recent landscape scenes, I was using five to six stops of GND filtration. That's a lot of filters to stack, and stacking that many filters affects IQ across the board (resin GND filters, even the really high end optical grade ones, affect resolving power and diminish IQ at every tonal level). With two more stops or so of DR, I could drop at least one filter. I might even be able to get away with a single three or four stop GND, eliminate the stacking all together.
In the cases where I could not use GND filtration (such as photographing a river within the trees, with only a V-shaped blown sky at the end), most of the time, I was about two, maybe two and a half stops short of being able to expose for the sky. Having two more stops of DR would have solved the very vast majority of that problem, more than enough to get away with the contrast I wanted with nice clean falloff into the shadows, while still preserving the sky. The 5D III, even though I wanted a contrasty image, does not have that clean falloff into the shadows...and the sky is STILL blown.
So, the whole notion that "it's still not enough" is a fallacy. It doesn't matter if it's not enough...it's still a LOT more dynamic range, and it results in cleaner data from the highlights right down into the deep, deep shadows. Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.
At least Sporgon concluded his facts were a little off, with no sarcasm and no insults.
Maybe the Auto Brightness LCD will make its way back to Nikon when they figure out how to make it work properly
I didn't realize Nikon lacked that feature, it certainly comes in handy on both my 1D X and my iPhone.
I've never had a problem with the color accuracy of my Canon bodies. Not that the LCD needs perfect accuracy for review, which is impossible to achieve anyway due to changing viewing conditions, as Lawliet points out.
Still, if my camera displayed images with an ugly green tint, I'd be pretty annoyed. I guess that yet another defect Nikon fixed by releasing a new camera.
The camera LCD cannot be calibrated, per se.
The screens on the D810 and D4s can be calibrated, but I've never seen that feature on any other camera as yet but it may be on Sony's, I don't know as I don't have one?
I suspect now it's on the Nikons, it will make it's way to Canons next releases.
I'd like to share a conversation that I recently had with a Nikon shooter.
The exchange took place on an airport shuttle bus so it was very brief. As I took an unoccupied seat across from a man and settled in with my Canon backpack on my lap, he took notice and said "Canon man huh?"
I explained that it wasn't out of a particular loyalty but that I had gone from an X700 to a digital rebel and had never changed brands since.
He then said that he was a Nikon shooter and was thinking of switching to Canon. I assumed he must be a sports photographer because from what I have read on this forum it seems that that is where Canons strengths are. But when I asked, he said that he was in fact a professional wedding photographer.
I mentioned the glowing reviews of the new 810 with the shadow detail and skin colors etc. and asked him of his reason for considering the jump to Canon.
His reply... "Canon shooters just seem happier".
OK, well here is 100%. The fact is there is just no difference.
Sporgon, I'm a little confused by what you are trying to show here. If you are saying that you can crop a full frame sensor image to the same effective focal length of an uncropped APS-C camera and not lose any significant detail, I don't think most people disagree with that.
When you have to do extensive cropping, sooner or later, the full frame image taken from the same spot with a sensor of equal megapixels is going to deteriorate, simply because the final image has less resolution.
I think this is the point of contention.
Yeah, sure if you don't have to crop severely, the "reach" advantage of a crop sensor may not be significant. But, if you must do some significant cropping of the image, the greater pixel density of the APS-C sensor will hold up longer.
Your experiment is a little unfair, because you are using a 12 mp APS-C sensor. A more fair comparison would be to take a 70 D and a 6 D, which are fairly close in the number of megapixels. Shoot the same scene with both from the same spot. Crop the 6D image to match the framing of the 70 D and then keep cropping away until one image deteriorates to the point where it becomes unusable.
Logic would suggest that the 6D image will fall apart sooner, because you are starting with less resolution. But, it would be interesting to see if that is really the case.
Of course, it if turns out the the fall apart equally, despite the difference in resolution, then all those people clamoring for a high-resolution Canon full frame camera would have to rethink their demands.
Frankly, I'm okay with either result. I would just suggest a more fair comparison.