« on: December 08, 2014, 08:28:00 AM »
Yes. B+W clear MRC XS-Pro
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.
A good Image, not great, but it is in my view a good image, and more importantly, I learnt something from reading the method of process.I've managed to get the most DR out of my mk3 by ETTR. I mean really pushing that exposure to the right to get clean shadows. While the exmors will still be better, they aren't good enough for me to invest extra time and hassle to get one. Here is some examples.
The a7r (Own & use one) is a a very good sensor matched to a mediocre system, but if you take your time on the Image (pertinent point with any Make/Model) it will produce excellent results, and having the 1Dx & 5DMK III in my view does generally produce files that have more latitude than the Canon sensors.
Having said that, I've had little trouble producing similar latitude in Images from the Canon Sensors, but it does require multiple exposures and more attention to detail.
For those that believe they can reproduce similar latitude to the Image discussed in this thread from single exposures from a Canon Sensor, I would be hugely interested to see some evidence, and I mean this in a positive sense, I would like to know just what I'm continuing to do wrong with my Canon gear that in a single exposure generally doesn't produce as much latitude as a single exposure on either the D800 (owned one of these as well) or the a7r.
In my own situation I primarily use Canon, but that's mainly because my main interest is Wildlife, long lenses. Of late I've attempted to move a little towards Still life & Landscape, and it's here that I've found a need for more latitude in the Images that the Sony Sensors appear to give, but always it's a balance, it's not always just the sensor, the system and how you use it is just as important.
Hopefully all these discussions become redundant in 2015 when Canon finally, hopefully, bring to Market a 40-50MP sensor that does have the latitude of the Sony Sensors.
If MF, then I'd also want it mirrorless. Rather than a cubic -blad-style mirrorslapper. That rumor about a Sony 50MP MF in a Mamiya 7 style body would be along my preferences. Zero slapping, zero vibration, zero noise. And more compact. :-)I'd just like sony to make a sony branded back for H-Series and Mamiya for the 8000$ price of the 645z. Then the system is modular and if you like mirrorless, they could make a mirrorless body for LF lenses like Phase1 did.
I believe Canon owns the pro market, simply by observation. How many photos have you ever seen of sporting events, for the past decade (including recently) where any brand other than Canon utterly dominated? Canon owns the pro market.
Cavet emptor - sporting events aren't exactly the whole pro market. They're more the low investment/low income potential segment, the kind of assignment you'd get at a paper after mastering the press conference coverage.
Go into commercial or at least editorial photography and every member, including the gofers, of your crew outearns the average sports shooter by a good margin. Here Canon was dominant; today you have a good idea about who has long term sponsorship contract.
No, sports are not the whole pro market, but they are a HUGE segment of the pro market. Weddings, portraiture, food and product photography, photojournalism, etc. are certainly parts of the pro market. Wedding photographers seem enamored by Nikon's latest offerings. They loved the 5D III, but the D750 seems to be the hot thing in that segment right now. I know a number of portrait photographers who seem to prefer Pentax (it seems to be a size thing in particular...smaller bodies, smaller lenses.) It seems as though studio photographers who frequently look to MFD have been looking to Nikon's D800 more often lately (although who knows, now that Exmors are in MFDs, they will probably go back...either way, Canon doesn't exactly have a product for them right now, nothing that competes with current competitor offerings anyway.)
Canon has a massive presence in the pro photography world, no doubt. However the pro world does not seem as locked into Canon as they used to be. At the very least, they have diversified.
I can't knock the RT system. It's unbelievably good that Nikon flash is pretty ugly to me now. And if I need those extra features, the YN transmitter has been very reliable for me, which I have to say I didn't expect.So apart from the best lenses, flash system, ergonomics, service, reliability, etc, "What have Canon ever done for us?"
... and so the thread spirals towards the inevitable conclusion that immunizes Canon from critique for so long: You just need to pay $15k+ for their premium gear and you'll be just fine. And for the rest of their lineup: You can do beautiful shots with it. And the photogs of olden days did so with even much less gear. So what could be wrong? 'nuff said :-o
Not at all, some of the comments ridiculing some of the decisions by Canon are very well made, particularly on the software side where the holding back of basic 'features' is laughable. But Canon are not the only camera company that play that frustrating game of never quite seeming to get it completely right in one go, they all do it.
But much of the core criticism is just as laughable. For instance I don't buy into the 'crippling the RT system' meme, I think having just the 600 and the ST-E3-RT is fine, if I want AF assist I'll have a 600 on camera anyway, after all it is very rare that most people are in a dynamic flash situation and couldn't use any on camera light, even if they are bouncing it, and at $455 a lot of the time it is still way cheaper than the Nikon SB910 that doesn't even have radio functionality, plus if you want to mess up a perfectly good RT system buying crappy Chinese 'clones' to work with it then go for it. OR, point me to another camera manufacturer that makes their own radio controlled flash system, oh, you can't.......
Besides, if Canon don't make what you want then go buy it elsewhere, nobody ever forced anybody to buy or keep Canon gear and it holds its value very well so moving systems isn't that expensive even if you have been tied into it for years or have a big investment in it.
I just sold a ten year old lens for $900, I bought it new for $1,250, that is a $35 a year rental cost! Even the 1D I just sold at a depreciated $6,000 and very low shutter count cost me less than 30c an image, around a 1/3 the price of the film per image it replaced.
Despite peoples opinions I am not a Canon apologist, I'd like to think I am more of a realist, Canon can offer us what they do now because of what they have done in the past, and as a career decision to use Canon way back in the '70's before I knew what I was doing and again in the early 2000's when I moved to AF, I am generally happy with what they have offered me, though I do have some frustration about the lack of a 1Ds MkIII replacement. I have no doubt that if I had chosen Nikon on either or both of those occasions I'd be just as happy.
Canon make very good cameras that fit in with an even better system, if that isn't for you then buy a different brand, nobody cares, but if you can't create the images you want with the gear currently offered then don't look for the lack of this or that feature as the excuse, the reason for your failure is six inches behind the viewfinder.
The history of photography would say otherwise. The game changers have and will be when shutters and strobes will both reach a normal sync at insane speeds at normal prices. Right now, still a compromise with HSS. Scoro Broncolor packs and Schneider LS lenses is what serious pros look to, the average pro would like that eventually and a 1/500th sync FF camera is a good first step.Incremental sync speed is vastly over rated and not the panacea many seem to think it is. Besides, the 1D from 2002 synced at 1/500 and the 1D MkIV syncs at 1/300 AND, speedlites like the 600-EX-RT, 580 EX II, Nikon SB910 etc have full power flash duration in the 1/250-1/350 range anyway, shorter shutter speeds actually cut your power even when you are not in HSS.I disagree. A FF camera with a sync speed @ 1/500th at that price would be a game changer. The X100 is already a hit with many strobists. It means I can stress my speedlites less, better battery life, and less headaches of battery pack swaps.
Of course you do.
However the X100 sync is a work a round that has it's own limitations, anything short of a true shutterless sensor read exposure and very short flash duration is. The real game changer in this area for serious pros has not been the X100 but the Profoto B1 Air kit, sync at any speed and any aperture, true HSS with a decent amount of power.
And now the Chinese are coming out with their own versions of powerful HSS enabled integrated battery powered studio strobe crossovers at a fraction the price, that is where the strobists that want to push boundaries should be looking, not at leaf shutter hacks.
Incremental sync speed is vastly over rated and not the panacea many seem to think it is. Besides, the 1D from 2002 synced at 1/500 and the 1D MkIV syncs at 1/300 AND, speedlites like the 600-EX-RT, 580 EX II, Nikon SB910 etc have full power flash duration in the 1/250-1/350 range anyway, shorter shutter speeds actually cut your power even when you are not in HSS.I disagree. A FF camera with a sync speed @ 1/500th at that price would be a game changer. The X100 is already a hit with many strobists. It means I can stress my speedlites less, better battery life, and less headaches of battery pack swaps.