November 28, 2014, 11:18:14 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 ... 51
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Another 50mp FF DSLR Mention [CR2]
« on: November 27, 2014, 11:10:36 PM »
dilbert, there's an implicit assumption in your comment: you assume that everyone's shooting needs and style are comparable to yours.  Many people rely on AF which has generally been superior in the Canon line.  I've not used the D810, but most reports indicate that it's much improved.  This should tell you that even Nikon shooters wanted better AF with their Sony sensors.

For someone who shoots moving subjects and relies on AF, no amount of DR will make up for it.

For someone who shoots still life, landscape, architecture, etc, no amount of AF or DR will make up for lack of needed lenses.

Do the above statements reflect your personal experience with photography?
Or did you canvas other people?

That depends on what you mean by "canvas:" I've read plenty by sports photographers, both pro and amateur, who rely on AF, and could not do what they do exclusively using MF.  I've read a number of pieces by landscape and architectural photographers who refuse to leave Canon because of the quality of Canon's TS lenses, despite their acknowledgements of the advantages of Sony sensors.  Have I actually run a scientific survey of these different sub-disciplines?  No, of course not.  Am I relying on my own personal experience?  No, I'm relying on what others have written about their needs and experiences.

Quote
Quote
Question to you, dilbert: do you ever shoot moving subjects?  Do you MF everything?
Of my last 3 outings to take photos totalling 7 days of photography, MF comprised 100%

Then AF has little value for you, and you should choose a camera system based on other criteria that match your shooting style.  My guess is that you're very unusual in this regard, and most people use AF quite a bit.  While I don't have direct evidence for this, it's a reasonable inference based on the fact that every major review of a new camera body will spend substantial amount of space discussing AF.  Also, as I noted above, the Nikon D810 has a much improved AF system over the D800, which wasn't bad.  This also implies strongly that "the market" is full of buyers who want AF.

I certainly will not say that the desire for more DR is invalid -- I'd love to have more of it in my Canon bodies.  However, it's not the only factor, nor even the primary factor, that makes an image a "keeper."  For a minority of photographers, possibly including yourself, it may make the difference between an image you like and one you don't.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Another 50mp FF DSLR Mention [CR2]
« on: November 27, 2014, 12:31:44 PM »
You can compare crisp shots with out of focus shots and more DR with less DR.
In order to judge better the image quality of a sensor, you need to use it with the best glass you can, and guess what... most of the top lenses are all manual focus: the Zeiss 135, the 2 Otus ones, Voigtlander 125, Coastal Optics 60, Leica Apo 280, 180, 100, and others.
That's why I don't see the 7D II AF as a major improvement, but just as a "better than normal 2014 AF system". It would have been imbarassing if it was not improved.

Anyway, most of this assumptions are quite personal and based on personal experience and opinions.

I think that's the point, here: which aspect of a camera system is most important depends on how you use the system.  If you do only one type of photography, e.g. landscape, that's limited by low-ISO IQ, then you should choose your system for that.  If you're a sports photographer, then AF and lens selection may be more important.  Those, such as myself, who dabble in a variety of subjects need to choose a system that balances our needs and budget.  The entire question of which is the best sensor, though not meaningless, can't really be addressed without discussing the way the camera will be used.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Another 50mp FF DSLR Mention [CR2]
« on: November 27, 2014, 10:05:33 AM »
I see...so, a blurry shot with more DR has better image quality than a crisply focused shot with less DR.  Right.   ::)
See, with focus, there's this ring around the middle of the lens that lets you adjust the focus. I've yet to find the ring around a Canon DSLR that lets you adjust DR.

dilbert, there's an implicit assumption in your comment: you assume that everyone's shooting needs and style are comparable to yours.  Many people rely on AF which has generally been superior in the Canon line.  I've not used the D810, but most reports indicate that it's much improved.  This should tell you that even Nikon shooters wanted better AF with their Sony sensors.

For someone who shoots moving subjects and relies on AF, no amount of DR will make up for it.

For someone who shoots still life, landscape, architecture, etc, no amount of AF or DR will make up for lack of needed lenses.

Question to you, dilbert: do you ever shoot moving subjects?  Do you MF everything?

4
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.

6
*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.

7
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?

8
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

9
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.



10
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?

11
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.

12
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.

13
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.

14
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?

15
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

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 51