Review on the 5D4 low light vs 1Dx2 and 7D2
- Thread starter Mikehit
- Start date
Since this is all light hearted I thought it an opportune time to place a quote that is worthy of consideration. I have been through a period of fretting about camera and lens and all things technical because who wants to acquire gear at great expense and find out it is ........ inferior. Horrors! 
From Tin Man Lee:
"There are many good wildlife photographers out there. Getting something different is more and more difficult. First, you have to ask yourself what you want people to say about your photos. Do you want people to say, "Wow, your photos are so sharp with no noise" or "Wow, you are so good in Photoshop." Or you want people to say, “Your photo touches my heart. You really captured the emotion here.” "
Jack
From Tin Man Lee:
"There are many good wildlife photographers out there. Getting something different is more and more difficult. First, you have to ask yourself what you want people to say about your photos. Do you want people to say, "Wow, your photos are so sharp with no noise" or "Wow, you are so good in Photoshop." Or you want people to say, “Your photo touches my heart. You really captured the emotion here.” "
Jack
Upvote
0
with all the talk about the 1200d i just want to say that you dont even have to look so good to see noise all the way at iso 100 and same thing with the 1300d
Upvote
0
Jack Douglas said:Since this is all light hearted I thought it an opportune time to place a quote that is worthy of consideration. I have been through a period of fretting about camera and lens and all things technical because who wants to acquire gear at great expense and find out it is ........ inferior. Horrors!
From Tin Man Lee:
"There are many good wildlife photographers out there. Getting something different is more and more difficult. First, you have to ask yourself what you want people to say about your photos. Do you want people to say, "Wow, your photos are so sharp with no noise" or "Wow, you are so good in Photoshop." Or you want people to say, “Your photo touches my heart. You really captured the emotion here.” "
Jack
You've hit the nail on the head Jack.
After being a photographer for many years, people like shots with impact, not just technically perfect images.
Prize winning photos are often lacking in some technical details, but they elicit feelings in people.
That's what photography is REALLY about.
Upvote
0
I think we all know this but we tend to be competitive and some like me are perfection oriented and nothing but the best technically speaking is acceptable. I recognize this trait in myself and try hard to work against it.
CR technical threads tend to accentuate the gear over the artistic. It wasn't until I read The Photographer's Eye that I even realized that I could gain technical expertise and still be missing the boat, massively, due to poor composition. For the most part composition has little to do with the quality of gear and all to do with the shooters eye. It's all about "seeing".
I'd probably be better served by spending on courses rather than gear. However, gear is well .... captivating and an adrenaline rush.
Jack
CR technical threads tend to accentuate the gear over the artistic. It wasn't until I read The Photographer's Eye that I even realized that I could gain technical expertise and still be missing the boat, massively, due to poor composition. For the most part composition has little to do with the quality of gear and all to do with the shooters eye. It's all about "seeing".
I'd probably be better served by spending on courses rather than gear. However, gear is well .... captivating and an adrenaline rush.
Jack
Upvote
0
Mikehit said:
No. However, I just Googled and up came a pdf of the whole book; it seems! The price is right, so I will be reading. Thanks for that heads up.
I can see by perusal that it takes a different mind set to appreciate his perspectives, perhaps that's a more cultured perspective, if you like (not in a snobbish sense). Perhaps it mirrors my experience of gradually gravitating towards classical music, which as a kid I couldn't or wouldn't tolerate. No matter, I am aware that I have started on a journey, a little too old unfortunately, that is opening my eyes.
I see he used an old 5D so I guess all his shots are of unacceptably poor quality, sadly.
Jack
Upvote
0
Jack Douglas said:I think we all know this but we tend to be competitive and some like me are perfection oriented and nothing but the best technically speaking is acceptable. I recognize this trait in myself and try hard to work against it.
CR technical threads tend to accentuate the gear over the artistic. It wasn't until I read The Photographer's Eye that I even realized that I could gain technical expertise and still be missing the boat, massively, due to poor composition. For the most part composition has little to do with the quality of gear and all to do with the shooters eye. It's all about "seeing".
I'd probably be better served by spending on courses rather than gear. However, gear is well .... captivating and an adrenaline rush.
Jack
I am not a professional photographer, but a relatively serious amateur who has been lucky enough to sell a few prints at summer art festivals. It wasn't until I started reading threads on this forum maybe 3 years ago that I ever thought about noise and realized that people were so hung up on it. I often want to say - if you are looking at the noise, then you aren't even looking at the photograph. But, unfortunately, in the age of the internet, the only way these camera sites can compare and "rate" cameras is by testing things such as noise and DR. Two things, that in my experience, are almost irrelevant. And yet, the techno-geeks have no other way to compare sensors, so that is what has become the priority for so many. And as long as the techno-geeks, drive the conversation, the technical aspects of the cameras (and the photos) will become increasingly the priority. And the quality of photography will drop even as the cameras become technically better.
Upvote
0
These points are of course valid. The reality is that a review of a tool can only describe the tool's features independent of the user. Since CR is largely a gear forum the discussions tend to be the comparative advantages and disadvantages and such things are useful to know when purchasing new gear.
Beyond that it all depends on the various contributors personal fixations, biases and opinions and sometimes this leads to statements like a given Canon camera is garbage, etc. Anyone making such a statement has exposed themselves as a dummy but given the lack of disclosure we will never know who these dummies are and really neither should we care. When a thread turns to that kind of commentary I generally un-check it and do something more worthwhile with my time.
We all have our particular interests and so however the threads go, short of being infected by dummies, is OK by me. The many knowledgeable folk on CR have always been super helpful to me and I like CR over all. Likewise I try to contribute positively when I have something worth contributing.
It baffles me how some threads have so many readers and responses when they are moving along with commentary at the level of about a 5 year old.
This particular thread has been informative.
Jack
Beyond that it all depends on the various contributors personal fixations, biases and opinions and sometimes this leads to statements like a given Canon camera is garbage, etc. Anyone making such a statement has exposed themselves as a dummy but given the lack of disclosure we will never know who these dummies are and really neither should we care. When a thread turns to that kind of commentary I generally un-check it and do something more worthwhile with my time.
We all have our particular interests and so however the threads go, short of being infected by dummies, is OK by me. The many knowledgeable folk on CR have always been super helpful to me and I like CR over all. Likewise I try to contribute positively when I have something worth contributing.
It baffles me how some threads have so many readers and responses when they are moving along with commentary at the level of about a 5 year old.
This particular thread has been informative.
Jack
Upvote
0
I don't want to complicate the experiment, but I do have a question. Don't aperture and ISO change with different sensor sizes? My understanding is that focal length and aperture should be multiplied by the crop factor and ISO divided by the crop factor to get equivalence. This means for any given lens/aperture/ISO, you'll get a longer focal length, narrower aperture and lower ISO for crop sensors vs full frame. Do the results still compare apples to apples to apples?
Upvote
0
atkinsonphoto said:
For the same exposure, the settings should be the same, your calculations are about depth of field.
Upvote
0
atkinsonphoto said:
Yes they do. But the premise of the OP's linked article is specifically focal length limited situations where all images are cropped to the same fov, the same area from each sensor. Therefore effectively the same sized sensor.
In this specific comparison there is no equivalence calculation.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
