October 21, 2014, 08:47:06 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 ... 49 50 [51] 52 53 ... 68
751
EOS Bodies / Re: What are you shooting first on your 5Dm3?
« on: March 24, 2012, 04:55:32 PM »
A '69  Boss 302 Mustang :)

752
The resolution and ISO performance of the D800 is very impressive, but where's the color, contrast, and sharpness? The overall IQ doesn't look much better than what you can get out of a 7D.

753
Those of us asking for more dynamic range didn't just decide to ask it because we saw a difference on some test chart.

That might apply to you, but not everyone else. There are tons of posts on here where people are going poo poo over the 5DIII based not on how poorly it performed in the field, and how its poor DR was the difference between capturing a great image and coming home with a junk image, but based on the DxO findings alone. Am I the only one that finds that bizarre? 

Quote
I do regularly hit scenarios where I really wish I had the 3 more stops DR (although certainly for many shots it won't make any difference at all, as well). And I think the same goes for most doing the same.

I'd venture to say all photographers run up against situations like this. I do all the time. My point is that there's always a disconnect between lab tests and field results, and right now, I'm having hard time actually seeing the 3 stop DR advantage of the D800 in the sample images that are rolling out. Your results may vary :) Come on, three stops of DR is HUGE. The difference should be very obvious outside of the lab, should it not?

Getting back to F1, Ferrari has gone from mopping everyone one up in the early '00s to struggling to keep up with McLaren and team Red Bull since the FIA banned off-season and in-season testing. They have their own freakin' track in Fiorana, Italy that they can't even use anymore. I'm sure if they could get back to doing some on-track, real world testing, their F1 program would be much more competitive. Furthermore, one of the new scrub F1 teams designs their cars entirely on computer. They don't do much testing at all, because they don't have the funds to do so. And guess what? They suck, and are always getting lapped within the first half of a race.

Whether it's in photography or F1, there needs to be a balance between lab testing and field testing. Unfortunately, the only thing many people seem to care about are lab results, and last I checked, you don't hang lab results on your wall and you sure as hell don't sell lab results to a client.

Quote
Many people are now raving about the awesome 5D3 AF, and quite a few of the ones who are now going on about how awesome it is are the very same people who called those of us who called out the prior non-1 series AF stuff like pathetic Nikon trolls or silly little people who just need to learn how to shoot properly or told us that is was absurd to ask for top AF in something that wasn't a 1 series. So us know-nothing Nikon trolls perhaps helped get them the very thing they are raving about now and said was impossible to even think of hoping for.

This is the body rumor forum, not a serious how to take better photos forum, so I don't know that it is a bad thing to call Canon out here

I have no problem calling Canon out when it needs to be called out. Before the karma system went away, I had the smites the prove it :) I just find it odd that people are talking about the 5DIII like it's something to wipe your @ss with when you run out of toilet paper based solely on the lab tests conducted by a single group of tech heads. That's not to say lab tests are useless, but rather they're not nearly as useful as determining the strengths and shortcomings of your equipment based on how you actually use it in the field.

I'm sorry, but when some posts images that they took of their girlfriend's hairy arm pit, and marvels at how much detail they can see in every last pungent follicle at 100%, I can't take them seriously. The D800 appears to be a terrific camera, but I doubt that's the intended use Nikon engineers had in mind when they designed it. Maybe that's your idea of creating art if you have a strange armpit hair fetish, but I other strange fetishes to attend to that don't involve photography ;D 

754
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Mother of God - D800 scores 95 DxOMark
« on: March 24, 2012, 02:43:28 PM »
I congratulate Nikon on producing a stellar camera in the D800. Now can someone please post sample images taken with both a D800 and a 5DIII, where the D800 made them a better photographer? I have a feeling that I'll be waiting for a long time.
Quote
Even when you do pixel peep, people reach different conclusions based on their biases. If this is someone's idea of enjoying photography, I find it quite pathetic.
Quote
To my eyes, however, the real-world benefits of its awesomeness are tough to spot in most of the images taken with it so far.
And yet you'd already decided that the D800 was the way to go, purely on the basis of spec sheets.

Thanks for digging that up for me, although you could have figured out that I ordered up a D800 (and a 5DIII for that matter) right here on Canon Rumors. I'm sorry you find how I choose to spend my own money so offensive.

It is interesting to read back to see how much my opinion has changed in the last couple of months. When I posted that, the rumor mill was swirling with a 5DIII with only a slightly improved AF and a 3-4 FPS burst rate. It didn't look like Canon would address my two biggest gripes with the 5DII, but they delivered big time. I never dreamed that Canon would put its flagship 61-point AF system and a 6 FPS burst rate in the 5DIII, but they did.

For me, the D800 is a camera whose specs are very impressive, but my enthusiasm has fizzled now that sample images from the wild are coming in. The 5DIII, on the other hand, is a camera whose rumored specs seemed very underwhelming at a time, but that changed once Canon seriously upped the AF and FPS ante, and it has impressed me more by the day as real world sample images start rolling in. 

Hopefully that's OK with Mr. KeithR, but if not, I don't care. How someone chooses to spend their own money is none of my business.

755
Difference between a pro and an amateur

The amateur will do anything for the right photo
The pro will do anything for the right money

 ;)

You have it all wrong. I see lots of amateurs that have much nicer gear than many of my pro photog buddies. That must mean that the main difference between a pro and an amateur is that amateur has more money ;D

756
Ah man. I thought we were going to continue our discussion on Ferrari's F1 program, but if you insist on talking cameras....
 
Believe it or not you are not the only person who has ever used a camera.

You're  kidding me. I thought the guys I compete with on a monthly basis to pay my bills and feed my kids were using Etch A Sketches. No wonder they never run out of space on their memory cards. Are there DxO test results for one of those bad boys yet?

Quote
I've shot the men's NCAA basketball tourney (and no, not from the stands :D) among other things.

I get it now. You're confused and licking the wrong camera's balls. Nikon has a special model for sports shooters called the D4 :D

Quote
And believe it or not I'm not the only person who thinks more dynamic range would be nice to have at times.

Finally, something we agree on! I'll take all the DR I can get. However, I can't easily distinguish the D800's DR advantage over the 5DIII without resorting to a lab test. I'm apparently in the minority here, but I simply prefer the overall look (color, contrast, sharpness) of the 5DIII's files. The D800's samples look flat in comparison. 

Quote
And believe it or not, some of them are actually full-time pros.

Ooooh, full-time pros. I'd like to say I'm impressed but I'm not. Whenever I talk to pros, those fools are so busy actually using their gear in the real world that most have never even heard about DxO tests. When are they going to learn about the joys of pixel-peeping and DR/ISO lab tests instead of trusting their own eyes and concentrating their efforts on becoming better photographers. I'm sure the first thing their clients do is blow the images their contributors submit up to 100%, and test its DR and noise. I don't see how they could possibly judge a great image from a junk image without doing so.   

Quote
And it's a bit hard to use reflectors to fill in the interior of a redwood forest, maybe for some scenes, if you spend 15 hours rigging and thousands in expenses for a single shot, perhaps, sometimes, but then try it for a landscape expanding over a a few hundreds acres and it's a bit trickier still and then try that for every single possible such situation you may come across anywhere and.... and yes, sometimes a tripod a multi-snaps will do and sometimes a grad ND filter will do it, but not always. especially if you want details and not a wax-look.

So we've established that different situations call for different equipment or a camera that excels in different areas. Now we're getting somewhere :) I have a photo shoot with E.T. scheduled in the redwoods of Northern California next month, so maybe I'll rent a D800 for the day. 

Quote
It's not the end of the world, but it's ridiculous to say it's pixel-peeping geek nonsense whenever it is something Canon is not best at, and absolutely critical when it's something Canon is best at.

Please. You're speaking to someone who ordered up a D800. Granted I will probably cancel it on Monday, but my point is that fixating on lab tests to the point where it takes precedence over judging an image based on overall execution, image quality, and artistic value is nonsense. I pity the fool who thinks his camera is great or thinks it's junk based not on the quality of the images it captures, but someone else's lab findings.

Seriously, that kind of fixation can't be healthy. The last time I was that fixated on something, someone ended up slapping a restraining order against me ;D

757
This one requires a fair amount of DR as well. When you're shooting with natural light, sometimes the light is harsher than you'd like, and it this case, it means you need a lot of detail on the shadow side of the cars and on the buildings. This is plenty of DR for a shot like this. Try to bring up the shadows any more, and the image will look flat, lifeless, two-dimensional, and boring. I suppose there is a lab test that measures for this sort of thing?


Other times, you have more control over the light to decrease the DR demands on a camera. There are these high-tech gizmos called reflectors. I think they were developed by NASA. I've heard you can use them for fill light to great effect.


I don't care how many stops of DR some pixel-peeping geek says a camera's sensor can capture. For shots like this, I'm using a reflector regardless of if whether I'm shooting with a POS Canon or with Sony's vaunted Exmor sensor.

758
and if you were really such a get out and shoot guy you might realize how 3 stops dynamic range can make a huge difference, maybe it doesn't for what you shoot, but then maybe that just shows that some of the pixel peeping geeks actually get out and shoot a lot more things than you huh?

In your attempt to be a smart@ss, you just posted the funniest line I've ever read by a pixel-peeping geek. Yes, I do dabble in photography that requires lots of dynamic range from time to time.









Somehow I manage even with $hitty Canon sensors. Now do you care to share some of your images that illustrate how effectively the DR of Sony's Exmor sensor can enhance your photography :)?

Quote
i guess the Ferrari test team has no lab huh?

Do you really want to use a car analogy with me? Of course Ferrari has a test lab. The big dog F1 teams like Ferrari and McLaren spend $300-plus million a year on R&D. Wind tunnels, automated dynos that simulate upshifts and downshifts of an entire race, etc. You name it, they test it. During a race, the two-way telemetry on an F1 car wirelessly streams gigabytes of data back to the lab every second so engineers can analyze it in real time.

That said, all that lab work doesn't mean $hit without real-world track testing. Furthermore, the only reason why teams spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lab testing is to they can more effectively develop parts for real-world testing. As it stands, the main reason why F1 teams are spending so much money on testing in the lab is because the FIA banned off-season and in-season testing a few years ago. Teams would much rather spend that money testing their cars on track in real-world racing conditions, but they can't, so they resort to lab testing instead. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in the lab just so they can make the most of the precious few days of real-world track testing that they're allowed. 

On the other hand, pixel-peeping tech geeks seem more interested in lab tests than actually using their cameras.

759
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Mother of God - D800 scores 95 DxOMark
« on: March 23, 2012, 11:07:08 PM »
So in summary, when you compare the new Nikon that is just hitting the market, it outperforms a Canon 5d2 that was designed in 2008.  Mother of god, who would have guessed?
No. It beats everything recent. And this is the terrible high mp sensor everybody dismissed as being noisy and bad :-)

Yes, there were lots of Canon fan body in denial, but I think the D800 has proven itself as having a great sensor. To my eyes, however, the real-world benefits of its awesomeness are tough to spot in most of the images taken with it so far.

760
OOC jpgs are really used as previews by us, so RAWs are really that count. Our shop does a lot of PP, so having high DR and high res that D800 has is advantage. Bring out all contrast and color from the RAWs. But for snapshots at low light, 5D3 jpgs are sufficient. Cheers.

I'm referring to sample raw files between both bodies, not jpegs. Of course more DR is always an advantage, but for some reason the D800's files don't look that great to me.

761
seriously?
The D800 beats it by almost 3 stops, yes THREE, at ISO100.
The 5D2 had a TON of room to improve at ISO100. At high ISO there is no possibility to improve by that dramatic of a degree since it;s not theoretically possible, but at low ISO they had tons of room to improve. Maybe Exmor patents make it tricky, but even the Exmor-less D4 improved ISO 100 by over a stop.

Dude, I'm not talking about lab tests. I'm talking about the good old fashioned way of judging image quality. Just look at an image and determine its visual impact, technical proficiency, and artistic value. That's how everyone other than pixel-peeping tech geeks judge IQ. Just about every pro that I know that shoots Canon (5DII or 1DsIII) does so because they like the look of the files, not because of how well their cameras perform in a lab.

Yes a three stop advantage is huge. Now that the real world samples are trickling out, I just don't see it translating to better IQ.

Quote
So 5DC to 5D2 wasn't much of a sensor upgrade but 5D2 to 5D3 is a huge sensor upgrade??

Never said that, buddy. The 5DC to 5DII wasn't enough of a jump in terms of AF, FPS, and overall IQ for me to justify upgrading based on my style of shooting. I didn't specifically single out the sensor in my post. As far as the overall package is concerned, the 5DC to a 5DIII is a huge jump. I care more about the entire camera package as a whole than sensor technology alone.

762
A non controlled environment. I am coming from a Canon 60d and the noise is terrible above 800 without a speedlite and even then way to noisy. I would hope such a leap to FF and better technology would yield much better results just unsure if the d800 is the way to go or the canon 5d3. So far I have not seen the tremendous noise free 25k iso images in reviews actually I think it drops off at 6400 and continues from there. That's not much of an increase considering they are talking native 25k iso. So I was wondering if nikon was doing the reverse and saying 6400 with a true ceiling of 12800 or at least some very detailed images below 800. I do shoot in all kinds of light so that is why iso is so important. I also need a larger DOF since usually there are more than one person in my shots.

I'm not trying to sound like a smart@ass, but would it be at all possible to match up your 60D with a tripod or a Speedlite? I just don't see why anyone needs to spend $3,000 to $3,500 to take family portraits. By "larger" DOF, do you mean shallow or deep DOF?

763
Without a doubt, D800 with lab proven DR 14+, its ISO 2800+, and a 36mpx detail totally blows its competition away. Heck, it is a $10,000 camera for less than 1/3rd price! No, good photographers will not get worse by using it... on the contrary, bad photographers might gain advantage by its cropping ability and other unmatched features.

Is it just the specs and lab tests of the D800 that you find so impressive, or do you find the D800's image quality equally as impressive?

All of the above!

D800 has amazing samples and amazing lab results. What more can you ask for?

Some more contrast and color. The 5DIII's files look sharper to me as well. All the D800 images I've seen so far look flat and lifeless. The D800's spec sheet is very impressive, but its images just aren't doing it for me. I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I'm not one of those guys that gets a hard-on by blowing up an image up to 100% and oogling at the minute details that won't be reproduced in print anyways. 

My 5DIII shipped yesterday, and I'm wondering why I haven't cancelled by D800 pre-order yet. At this point, the only reason I haven't done so yet is because it's shabbat, and B&H is closed until Monday :)
 

764
Another set of flat, lifeless D800 images. Where's the color and contrast?

They are reserving it for the D900  :)

Good one!

765
Without a doubt, D800 with lab proven DR 14+, its ISO 2800+, and a 36mpx detail totally blows its competition away. Heck, it is a $10,000 camera for less than 1/3rd price! No, good photographers will not get worse by using it... on the contrary, bad photographers might gain advantage by its cropping ability and other unmatched features.

Is it just the specs and lab tests of the D800 that you find so impressive, or do you find the D800's image quality equally as impressive? 

Pages: 1 ... 49 50 [51] 52 53 ... 68