Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by CSBC, Sep 17, 2008.
I won't mention the quality of Nikon 14-24mm lens and show off photos from it then
Great shots Fen.
I've been off this week but the weather / light has been very poor. Not one shot worth a second look.
That is a great example, looks very sharp. I was looking at you flickr site a few days ago, like the Pembrokeshire pics but couldn't pick a favourite
Whats the D3 like for shallow DOF? what lens do you use?
How can I agree or disagree? What he wrote was personal to him so I can hardly say that he didn't have difficulty adjusting to a "low" resolution camera can I?
I don't get the best out of the 12MP I already have unless I print my pictures so what would I do with 24MP? I don't have room to store a fraction of the images I have produced over the past 5 years if I printed them and many of them don't need to be more than legible. Give me 12 Million big quiet pixels any day, I found 4MP enough when I used the D2h but I like having enough data to crop a bit.
I won't be buying a 5D because none of my lenses will fit and it is spoiled by having the word Canon on the front. However even if I were a Canon user I would think twice about buying a camera with features I had no use for. I have actually considered a D40x/D60 for some of the work I do simply because they are less obtrusive. Video? no thanks, live view? not really, built in flash? preferably not. 24MP? not unless I get a free upgrade for all my memory cards, hard disks and RAM, 20MB RAW files are quite large enough. Remember a monitor displays a little over 1MP.
When Nikon bring out the D3X/D4 at 24mp will it be the best thing since sliced bread?
Seems Canon cannot do anything right anymore (in some eyes).
Well - not everyone thinks like that. Here's an alternative view from a Nikon fan on another forum:
So there's saddos all over the place.
Don't know why he's got very sad, clearly he's made a significant leap forward in his photography if he has outclassed a D700 in 2 months and is even branching out into videography.
I think it's because he paid well over the odds for his D700 seeing as it's RRP s well below theat of the new 5D and he obvisouly hasn't found the 51 AF points or the high ISO performance.
Well you couldn't be expected to find every feature in 2 months.
At his rate of progress manufacturers will clearly be struggling to keep up
Ah, my bad (memory). What Reichmann actually said was that a 12mp camera - the D3 is a good example, as he's bought one! - could do around 16x24 ins at 180dpi, so even better than I'd previously suggested. Article is here; the discussion of prints & pixels is near the bottom under the "Sensor Size vs. Noise" heading.
This obsessing over technical minutiae amuses me.
I've had my current camera for nearly 4 years and become a much better photographer over the same time period, despite not upgrading. Would constantly upgrading my camera to the next all singing and dancing device have had a similar effect? Or does my seeming immunity from camera envy make me an oddball?
No, coming from Lancashire makes you an oddball.
I thought the War of the Roses was over...
Not at all - but I can't see why it should amuse you. Some people are interested in cameras for their own sake, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's as fallacious to assume that people think their photography should improve simply by buying a "better" camera as it would be to actually believe that, IMVHO.
It's a tricky one. I don't think any of the modern advances makes any one better, but they might make getting better shots easier.
Take the new 5Dmk2 and compare it to my 5Dmk1. If I had the new camera it would make it easier for me to get good low light shots. At the moment I have to take some tricky decisions on iso vs shutter speed, using my skill and experience to determine how low I can go on shutter speed and cranking up the ISO to allow that. And also realising that sometimes I'm just not going to get the shot. With the new one I could just use the high ISO feature and set my minimum shuuter speed in Tv mode.
The other big difference between the cameras in pixel count. I shoot a lot of portraiture and I like to use a very narrow D0F. The placement of the AF sensors means I have to half press focus, recompose and shoot. This method brings in focusing errors that need a bit of skill to adjust for (focusing slightly behind or in front of the eye before recomposing typically). With all those extra pixels to play with I could just centre focus on the eyes and crop to suit the composition I wanted anyway. Again - easier rather than better.
So is it silly to assume that all the tecky advances make you a better photographer - probably. Is it silly to think that by usuing them you will get a greatter hit rate of good photographs - probably not.
Quite right. The point of this techie-faffing surely is to discuss precisely whether an upgrade to a camera with over 12mp is worth anybody's while unless they genuinely need it for professional reasons. As Reichmann says, a 12mp camera can easily do a magazine double page spread, or A2 prints without ressing up. The backchat article in last week's AP describes how a Nikon D70 (a 'mere' 6 megapixels) user was able to produce an acceptable A0 print for an exhibition. In that case, yes, a 21mp camera would undoubtedly do better, but only in the same way as medium format film would beat 35mm or large format beat medium.
[Basically I tuned out the moment I read the words 'as Reichmann says'.]
Everyone's opinions are valid. If we, as amateurs, have enough money to indulge in out hobby and upgrade every other year, fair play. If your pleasure is in the camera rather than the image, great. It reminds me of a chap I spoke to just the other week who proudly showed me his brand new D300, grip and lens, probably about £1500 worth of gear all told, and then showed me some of his railway photos taken at various platforms around the country. Could he have used a point and shoot compact to get the same result - yes. But if he wants to use a £1500 camera for the same task, that's his choice. Not how I'd do it, but there you go. Sorry to derail the thread by the way, back to the 5D.....
I am a little confused as to your point? most of the photographs I take, and show folks could arguably have been taken on a point and shoot, but I know full well how to use a Dslr or film slr, so the photographs i show YOU might not represent my competence in photography, but may represent what I took away from a greeat day out! If however the photographer has shot in RAW and perhaps wants to crop and enlarge without degradation who is anyone to criticise? Most of the photographs I have taken that in my opinion demonstrate an understanding of photography normally lead to comments such as "where are the people?" "there is no one in the photograph" etc.etc. If you show folks a "standard" picture that is technically and compositionally close to perfect they will generally not comment beyond, thats a "nice picture" but for me thats enough, from the general public, I am happy with a "thats nice" comment and the satisfaction that folks are happy to have pictures on display in their homes!
I'd like a good comparative test, a cropped 5Dii image against a 50D image.
I hope that we get something like that.
Separate names with a comma.