Maybe then these forums could finally ditch the persistent Nikon fanatics and actually have some more interesting conversations for once. Maybe about ART, rather than technology.
With all due respect (which is plenty, …for your many informative posts about technology , "Canon Rumors" is the place for art-rather-than-technology discussions because, …?
Because that's what cameras are all about...making photographic art. Sure, it's a piece of technology, but they aren't designed to be collectors items that we obsess over the technical details of...just for the sake of obsessing over technical details.
Cameras are the engines of photonic artforms. The technology is just a means to an end...and while I'm the first to stand up and correct the discussion when someone starts spouting missleading factoids, that isn't really what we should be worried about. We should be concerned with the ACTUAL outcomes.
In that respect...the actual outcomes of pretty much all cameras on the planet these days put the vast majority of film-era photography to shame. Higher resolution, better color, better moments, better everything. We obsess over the technology so much these days that it's to the detriment of our art. Notice that I haven't been around quite as much lately? I'm trying to put more of my time into the art, instead of into debates about the technology.
(I've always been interested in astrophotography, and I'm very good at imaging the moon, but I've recently taken the deep dive into full blown wide field deep sky astrophotography. It's the most amazing, intriguing, beautiful...and concurrently complex, technical, and TIME CONSUMING form of photography I've ever seen. The depth and complexity of our night sky is just...amazing, and I really have to focus to make any headway. I struggle with technology...DSLRs, as much as Canon DSLRs specifically (especially the 350D and 450D, modded for high Ha sensitivity or even monochrome use) are used in astrophotography, are so woefully inadequate for the job. But the technology is only part of it. The rest is the artistic aspect. Once you've dealt with all the technical aspects, set up your mount, calibrated it, pointed it at an interesting nebula, and exposed dozens or hundreds of frames...then you have to turn all that technical data into a piece of artwork...and THAT is truly the most difficult part. I may spend 8 hours gathering data, and days processing it. So...maybe art is just on my mind these days.
I spent a lot of time on these forums...and while I am happy to admit I don't know everything, I do know some things extremely well. I'm happy to have helped educate you guys to some of the oft-misunderstood facts about the technology that supports your art, and help you formulate more realistic hopes for future technology. But...these days, it's all the same old debate: "Nikon has more DR! Sony has more DR! Canon must suck!" Same old debate.
There are still those who think that ISO 100 DR is the only thing that matters for IQ, when demonstrably, significantly fewer people shoot at ISO 100 than shoot at ISO 400 and up, where DR differences are minimal to meaningless. Canon technology does exceptionally well at higher ISO, and the rest of their non-sensor technology (not the least of which are their lenses) is superior to most every other option out there with a few rare exceptions (i.e. the Otus).
Just kind of tired of saying the same old thing, usually to the same old thick-headed, stubborn individuals, and not having the message sink in. (Especially when their responses demonstrate the most blatant and extensive ignorance...I'm constantly asking myself: "Geeze...I have to explain it AGAIN? How can I explain it differently, how can I dumb it down enough, that they might actually GET it this time?" Then I realize that they are probably just over-invested trolls...and try to go back to my processing...) Personally, I think it would be a nice change of pace for the lagging aspects of Canon technology to no longer be an issue, and instead start talking about how to use the technology Canon (and others, like Adobe) are giving us to make better art
Because...if were not using our cameras to make AWESOME, MIND BLOWING ART, the kind of art that makes people stop and go:
......what's the point?
(Mind you, I do not consider myself that kind of artist yet...I think I have some good works, but I know that I have a LONG way to go before I can create the kind of work that really gives people pause and reason to meditate on the images they see. I need to spend a LOT more time with my camera and lens to learn what needs to be learned to become an expert or master of the art. It would be nice to discuss the nuances of the art
, though...to discuss technique and vision and aesthetics....rather than technology...just for once.)
BTW, if you want some WOWs...try this guy out: Deep Sky Colors
I think he may just be the best astrophotographer on the planet...he does huge mosaics with the deepest exposures, with the richest colors, taken under the darkest skies on earth, the guy will drive over 7000 miles just to produce one mosaic...and every single one of his images just blows my mind so much I'm not even able to utter the word "wow". It's just. Mind. Blown. No words.
^^ This is my goal. If I can become skilled enough to make just one image that compares to this guys work before I die....then I'll die a happy photographer.