September 23, 2014, 02:38:31 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 - V8Beast

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 65
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D750 to be Canon 5D3 competitor?
« on: September 07, 2014, 03:15:49 PM »

We can only hope that Canon will be responding in some way to the D750.

The way I see it, Canon preemptively "responded" to the rumored D750 two years ago by releasing a great all-rounder in the 5D3.

The D750's rumored specs and price point make it extremely appealing. However, releasing a lower megapixel, higher FPS body only two years after launching the D800 reflects a epic failure on Nikon's market research department, IMHO. The bulk of D700 users didn't want a resolution monster with a slower frame rate, but that's exactly what they got with the D800. Perhaps if Nikon gave D700 users what they really wanted, they wouldn't have had to make the D800 a more versatile all-around (by creating the D810) in addition to launching another lower resolution, high FPS body within just two years of releasing the D800.

IMHO, the D750 is the camera Nikon should have released two years ago to replace the D700. If they did that, and if Canon didn't dramatically improve the AF and FPS of the 5D line, I would have switched to Nikon two years ago and never looked back. Fortunately, Canon delivered the perfect camera for my needs (5D3), while Nikon continues to lead the way in the highly lucrative landscape segment ;D


The Lone Isle

My goodness, that is one spectacular hunk of rock. Looks like it's about to tip over. Where was this image taken?

This is far from a great shot, but I think the Samsung Galaxy S3 handled the contrast rather well. The shadow noise is terrible, but who cares. I was somewhat distracted from having to drive, so busting out the ND grad filter was out of the question :o As the saying goes, the best camera is the one that you have with you ;D

(People here seem to have missed the fact that I'm only complaining about the 5D III's low ISO performance and noise characteristics. The amount of misrepresentation of my position on this whole subject is staggering, but I guess that's how people react when someone tries to reveal any amount of truth about the REAL quality of Canon sensors at low ISO. Instead of acceptance, denial. Instead of discussion, it's outright hostility or a bunch of crude jokes. Canon sensors suck balls at low ISO, compared to the norm's just the simple truth of the matter. It may not affect everyone's work, but it doesn't change the facts.)

I agree that the D810 has closed the gap...but Nikon does not have anything that compares to the 600 f/4 L II, which is my single largest photography investment for birds/wildlife. The A7r would be the best option. That's still $2300...but a better deal than the D810. If I do buy something....that'll probably be it. I just can't put $5300+ into a D810 and 14-24...not with all my astrophotography needs.

When brand loyalty runs deep, facts are never enough to sway people's opinions :)

SoNikon sensors are better than Canon's current offerings at low ISO. Period. End of story. I see no need to be in denial over it. If I were in your situation, the Sony A7 or A7R would be intriguing options to consider. Does it suck that you'd have to buy another body outside the Canon system to fulfill all your shooting needs? Of course, but it is what it is, and trying to convince people that don't want to be convinced is a losing proposition.

If I had more product photography gigs, where I could benefit from the finer tonal gradations that Exmor sensors offer, I'd buy an A7 in a heartbeat. However, I just don't have enough of those types of gigs to warrant the expense, so I'll make do with and be happy with my 5D3 :)

D810: $3300
14-24mm: $2000

'Just switching' to Nikon with a single body and lens is no cheap endeavor. Especially if the primary purpose is just for one type of photography. Throw in various necessary accessories, the price gets up to nearly $6000.

It is also possible that Canon meets the vast majority of your needs for everything but that one or two types of photography.

You CAN be discontent and still stuck with a system that isn't delivering what you need, want, and are unwilling to dump money into an alternative/additional brand for.

Wouldn't selling that 5D3 and 16-35 help offset the cost of a D810 and 14-24 quite a bit :)? The D810 has substantially closed up the all-around versatility gap between the D800 and 5D3, so that seems like a viable option. There's also the Sony A7 option that dtaylor mentioned. Being able to use Canon glass on a Sonikon sensor/body seems like a winner to me if you need better DR for landscapes. Then if Canon ever makes a sensor with DR suitable for your needs, you can just sell the A7 which will have brought you years of DR superiority without ever having to change systems.

As a Canon users, I feel no need to go on Nikon forums and bash Nikon. If I ever switch to Nikon, I'll feel no need to go on Canon forums and bash Canon. Seriously, what's the point?

To some users on here, DR is the most important aspect of their photographic needs. If that's the case, just switch to Nikon and call it a day. IMHO, choosing to live in a perpetual state of DR discontent with excuses like "it's too much of a hassle to switch systems" or "I'd lose too much money by switching systems" ultimately means that DR is not that important to you.

My advise: Switch systems, be happy, and STFU ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 01:44:01 AM »
Yes, it's not the be all and end all, but I can guarantee when Canon match the Exmors, the tone in here will change as people start to see the benefits across the ISO range, not just at low ISO.

That always happens, but that's the case in both camps. Canon fanboys subscribed to the resolution/IQ school of thought during the 5D2/1Ds3 era, then converted to ISO/FPS school of thought during the 5D3/1DX era. Nikon fanboys subscribed to the ISO/FPS school of thought during the D700/D3 era, then converted to the resolution/IQ school of thought during the D800/D4 era. Both camps are equally guilty of fanboyism :)

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 12:15:51 AM »
From my experience of handling Nikon and the newer Canon that Canon's lenses are several generations ahead of Nikon.

Canon's user interface is 20 generations ahead of Nikon ;D

If Nikon built a true successor to the D700, I might have bought it. Interestingly, Canon built the true successor to the D700 in the 5D3, so I bought it instead ;D

Technical Support / Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« on: August 24, 2014, 06:08:17 PM »
Hi V8Beast.
I think 14 years as a toolmaker left me with quite a keen eye for details like that, but don't ask me what colour the misses' eyes are!  :o
I just re-read my post to you, I'm glad you interpreted it in the manner intended, not as criticism of you!
Out of interest what is it a chassis for?

Cheers, Graham.

Even if it was a criticism (which it clearly wasn't), I've learned that you have to be able to handle criticism in order it to make it in this business :) And yeah, eye color isn't the first thing that catches my attention about a woman, either ;D

The chassis is for an old Dodge pickup, hence the long lower control arms. The same company also manufactures similar custom chassis for everything from old musclecars to Alfa Romeos. With substantially stiffer framerails, revised suspension pickup points, coilover assemblies, splined sway bars, etc. they're some very nice pieces of hardware. I like how they have passages for the exhaust as well to improve ground clearance.

Here are some snapshots of a Camaro frame they built. I like how they kicked in the framerails to maximize tire clearance and raised the spring/shock mounts allow for a lower ride height without compromising suspension travel. To put cost into perspective, a 1Dx is cheap by comparison :o

Sports / Re: Your favourite motorsports events
« on: August 24, 2014, 05:49:21 PM »
What a race for Ricciardo and Red Bull today. I honestly didn't pay much attention to Ricciardo before this season, but his poise, confidence, and determination have been phenomenal. Most shocking is how badly he's out-performed his four-time World Champ teammate. His battle with Alonso at Hockenheim was epic to say the least! I'm really impressed by the way he carries himself on and off the track.

The prospect of Vettel driving for McLaren is intriguing, especially now that Newey will be stepping down at Red Bull. Honda has a LOT invested in returning to F1, and they're definitely going to demand a driver lineup better than the current Magnusen/Button tandem.

Technical Support / Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« on: August 23, 2014, 10:00:16 PM »
Hi V8Beast.
I would not worry about the image lighting quality until the client provides correctly assembled product for you to capture, as an engineer the first thing I notice in the images is the cocked rose joint on the left hand tie bar! In my opinion the client has let you down by not straightening such things, unless you are responsible for the assembly, in which case you need to address such things, if you are not responsible for it at least bring it to the attention of the client!  ;D
I know that rods with dual rose joints will naturally settle to their own position, but at least they can be lined up for aesthetics during product photography.

Cheers, Graham.

Ha! Good catch! It's funny how you get so consumed with getting the shot that you overlook the most basic of how the product is assembled.

Sports / Re: Your favourite motorsports events
« on: August 23, 2014, 01:44:42 PM »
What do you think about this Ricciardo fella? The way he's been sticking it to to Vettel, he just might be my new favorite driver. As an American F1 fan, I found his reason for picking #3 to be quite endearing as well. It's not like there's an American to root for, because Rossi doesn't really count ;D

Sports / Re: Your favourite motorsports events
« on: August 23, 2014, 12:06:49 AM »
Someone please go to Spa this weekend so I can drool over pics of F1 cars running flat-out through Eau Rouge ;D

Technical Support / Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« on: August 23, 2014, 12:02:12 AM »
Medium format file bit depths are generally much bigger than 135 format RAW files so they are much better at subtle tonality, they can literally accurately record thousands more tones of grey, also they don't have AA filters so detailed gradation is rendered much more accurately.

Indeed it could well be the AA filter that people are seeing on the crop cameras that is killing some of the subtle tonality of the image. Generally crop cameras have more severe AA filters than 135 format cameras and as their bit depth is the same it is the only substantive difference.

V8, you should borrow a D810 to see how you like the tonality of that, it should be the closest to the medium format in 135 format, though still not as good.

I knew someone smarter than me could provide a real technical reason as to why medium format looks so much better for this type of stuff ;D Glad to know exactly why now.

I certainly don't shoot enough product images like this to warrant investing in a D810, but would like to try one out some day. I just hope it doesn't have an oily sensor :o

Technical Support / Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« on: August 22, 2014, 11:53:06 PM »
One more thing. As no surprise, lighting plays a tremendous role in the perceived depth and tonality of an image. In other words, a crop sensor with proper lighting technique can produce an image with a better "3D" quality than a full-frame sensor with mediocre lighting technique.

Both these images were shot with my 5D3, 24-105 lens, and the same lighting equipment. The only difference is that in the second image (the close-up), the physical limitations of the location preventing positioning the light sources where I wanted to. This compromised the lighting angle, and resulted in a much flatter, duller, two-dimensional image. The gradations, particularly in the mid-tones, aren't nearly as smooth. Therefore, the flat image had nothing to do with sensor size and everything to do with mediocre lighting technique. Just don't tell that to my client ;D


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 65