Am I the only person that wasn't very impressed by the D800 sample images?
I'm impressed by the portrait images, but not the landscapes, although some of that is down to choices made by the photographers.
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.
Am I the only person that wasn't very impressed by the D800 sample images?
Well, comparing the ISO640 shot from the D800 to the ISO1600 shot from the 1D X, I'm pretty impressed with the noise on the 1D X...its damn good at that ISO! I think the photo is a little soft though....not sure what that is...over-aggressive AA filter/slightly out of focus/camera shake....either way, the ISO640 shot from the D800 is definitely sharper. I hope the 1D X doesn't suffer from the same softness problem as the 7D (which, while certainly manageable, is probably one of the few annoyances I have with that body.)The slight softness on the skin could be due to processing, as her eyes look sharp to me. The ISO400 shot probably shows too much skin detail for a portrait.
Thanks for the tip, but i already have a cheap Cokin P mount holder, but I'd rather not use the cheaper filters. Besides, if I only use the base Lee holder I don't have a problem, it's only when/if I need to position the polariser in a different plane to the grad, but as a polariser often causes problem with landscapes at 17mm, due to the uneven polarisation, I'm limited to when I can use it anyway. To be honest, the sort of shooting that I usually do, I use the 17-40 much less than I used to since getting the 5D MkII and probably even less now that I have the 24 MkII with its much better image quality.I have the 17-40, but I've never used the 16-35 (either version) for comparison. At f/16, it is pretty soft in the corners at 17mm on full frame, but it is handy for specific effects, particularly where you can use the distortion creatively. Once you get to 24mm though, I find it is sharper than my 24-105 and there is certainly less barrel distortion. As with any UWA, use of polarisers is problematic, if you point it towards the sky and you can't really use it fully zoomed out with a second section of a Lee filter set, as the adaptor is in frame in the corners.
to solve this issue buy a cheap ebay cokin filter holder (the plastic one) only a couple of bucks
and get a hack saw then saw off the extended holder section so you only have 1 filter slot. I find doing this stops the corner interference on full frame at 16mm. it introduces another problem in that light gets in between the filter and the lens so you need to make a little shroud that goes around the edge of the square filter and over the lens barrel. hope this helps
briansquibb, one of the concerns I have with a 5D Mark II is that I would be giving up FPS. My 40D has 6.5 and the 5D has 3.9. I also prefer a cropped frame since I like to shoot zoomed in sports shots. Finally, I was worried that the ISO on the 5D would not live up to my expectations. My 40D ISO is awful at 1600. But as Mt Spokane Photography pointed out, I should keep my ISO below 800 on my 40D. This means I cannot get decent shots shooting outdoor soccer after 5:30 pm, this time of year .With my 40D, I wouldn't go above ISO 800 either, whereas with my 7D, I won't go above ISO 1600. For critical shots, I wouldn't normally go beyond that with my 5D MkII either, but I know that I have the option if I need it. I tend to use my 7D for situations where I need the faster focusing and might need the frame rate (although it's actually quite rare I use the motor drive, I prefer to time it instead if possible), but switch to the 5D MkII for higher image quality, where detail is important, such as for macro and landscape or in low light.
However, I think I can compromise and keep my 40D as a backup for outdoor sports when shooting in bright sunlight and the 5D for sports shots where there is poor lighting conditions and where I don't need as much reach (i.e. inside a gym). I'm just waiting for this month's announcements before I make a final decision .
BTW, Mt Spokane Photography nice shot! I am glad to see that the 5D has good ISO performance.
I've always been under the impression that the price of the 400 f/4 DO was pushed up because of the diffractive optics, as it is in the same price range as the original 500. Had the new supertelephotos not been significantly more expensive compared to the original versions, I would have expected it to be cheaper than the DO, now it will probably be as much or more though, probably in the same range as the 300 f/2.8 MkII.The other two lenses make perfect sense, but I think that people expecting the 400mm f/4 lens to be cheap are going to be in for a shock. Whilst I've no doubt that it would be cheaper than the 500mm f/4L IS II, I don't think it would be much cheaper than the 300mm f/2.8 IS II. I think that you'd be looking at a lens filling the US$3500 to US$4500 range that is at present dominated by Sigma, not in the price bracket of lenses like the current 300mm F/4L IS, 4oomm f/5.6L, 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS.
I would have no problem dropping $3500 to $3800 for a high-quality 400mm f/4 L IS lens. that's still a huge step away from even the 300mm f/2.8 L IS II at 7K.
I would assume that, given the Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO L IS lens runs for about $6000 (and I think lists for $6999), a non-DO EF 400mm f/4 L IS lens, especially if its got top-notch near-perfect optics like the new 500mm L II and 600mm L II lenses, it would list for a fair bit more than the DO (DO may be smaller, but it does have a definite limit on resolution...*diffractive* optics). Probably looking at $7999 - $9999. I think everyone would like to have a $3800 400/4, but once you get into high resolution, high quality, image-stabilized telephoto optics (which is what Canon excels at)...the differences in price tend to be minor. I'd be surprised to see such a lens for less than about ten grand....
Do you feel genuinely upset and angry when a photographer portrays a photo as something it’s not? If so, why does this get you so worked up?
Recently, I received a comment on one of my photographs that had been uploaded to a stock photography site, stating that it was nicely taken, but didn't look real due to the "Photoshopping". To say I was confused and irritated was putting it mildly, as I aim for reality in most of my photos and don't have the patience for lengthy processing. Also, the photo in question had, had a simple curves adjustment to increase the contrast and nothing else.
After contacting the photographer who made the comment, I was able to ascertain, that he had looked at the EXIF data and assumed that it had been "Photoshopped", simply because I had edited it in Photoshop, so basically, even if I hadn't done any editing and had simply converted to a JPEG, he would have accused me of "Photoshopping". I think this is a sad reflection on how photography is now viewed and how people believe that anything is possible (including getting a good photo from a bad one) and that it doesn't portray what was seen. The reality is, that with few exceptions, you can't rescue a bad photo and probably most photographs are still a reflection of reality or at least the photographer's reflection of reality.
If we as photographers portray a false impression, then it is harder for the public to trust what we tell them. It is already difficult, with people having the assumption that anything can be done (or rescued) with Photoshop and other editing software. But again, why is it so important? Does it really matter what people think? It depends on the purpose, for an artistic creation, it doesn't matter at all, but if we want to inform the public of a particular problem, then they need to trust and believe in what we are saying.
Sometimes manipulating the viewer is wrong, but sometimes it is needed to put a message across, it's no different than a newspaper article putting a slant on a story. Photography is also telling a story, if you are making a documentary point, then it requires different ethics to an image that is simply an artistic creation. For example, near where I live, I could photograph an idyllic rural scene, with a country pub next to the canal. This would paint a picture of a quiet drink next to the canal, but in reality, right above my head would be the M5. If I was simply making an artistic photograph, there would be nothing wrong in this, but if I was photographing the pub for an estate agent and then sold that quiet scene, it would be unethical. The same would be true if I was trying to portray an animal in a similar manner. The key is to declare any concepts and manipulation.