e_dawg
Storage Freak
Apparently someone pee'd in youe Wheaties today. Just keep grinding that axe. You're bound to get a nice edge on it soon or later.
Indeed. Sorry for my apparent crankiness today.
Apparently someone pee'd in youe Wheaties today. Just keep grinding that axe. You're bound to get a nice edge on it soon or later.
A friend who will be shooting my wedding Saturday will be doing so with some 5DIIs. I'm almost looking forward to playing with them more than the wedding.
Bah, the guy ditched all his Canon gear and brought a pair of D700s and an army of lenses I wasn't familiar with.
There was an 18-something F2.8 and an 85/1.4 that were very good.
Now I'm the only guy around here with Canon gear.
The D700 is possibly the best "all around" FF camera these days. Those that like HD video may like the 5DII and those who like resolution may like the A900. None of them are perfect; none of them suck. Just pros and cons and individual preferences.
Far from it. Not that it's a big deal, but lots here with Canon. Tannin, SD, Handy, Pradeep, LM (at least some Canon stuff left, no?), and others. If it makes you feel any better, I'm always the only guy anywhere with Olympus gear.
But when people see my prints, it doesn't really matter if I used Olympus or Polaroid, now does it?
But, even if buying cameras wasn't a business expense, and even if one can afford something, that doesn't mean that it's good value. My late fatherinlaw was financially well off, but he'd drive miles out of his way to buy gas for 2 cents a gallon less than at the station just across the street. When I asked why, his reply was simply that it was the principle of the matter.
That's something of what I feel about the D3x and why I cancelled my order. Yes, I can afford it, but I simply find it not to represent good value. After testing the 24MP Sony A900 (which I purchased for less than the equivalent of US $2,500 here in Toronto last month) the thought of paying US $8,000 for a camera that that has the same resolution, the same frame rates, a similar large and bright viewfinder, etc, just seemed to me to be a bad value proposition. The Canon 5DII at well under $3,000 is another current alternative in a full-frame 20+ MP camera.
With the value represented by the Nikon D700 as compared to the D3, and the Canon 5DII as compared to the 1Ds MKIII, I feel that the days of the mega-pro DSLR are numbered for many photographers. Yes, of course they offer superior AF, weather sealing and maybe a slight edge in image quality, but the price differential is enormous, especially now as the world enters a serious recession, if not worse.
So yes, there will be some that buy the D3x, just as there are still those that buy the wonderful Nikon F5 film camera. Nikon is known for fighting rear-guard actions and doing so well. I'm sure that Nikon will still sell some D3's and D3x's, and Canon some 1DMKIII's and 1DsMKIIIs, but I now believe that the days of these cameras as mainstream are passing, as much lower cost and competent alternatives become available.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Bottom line: 12 million more pixels will set you back US$3000. [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We can't talk about the D3x without talking about the D3 and pricing. D3 prices have been collapsing for some time. That's despite the fact that Nikon has not lowered the price to dealers (at least here in the US; not 100% sure about the rest of the world). That's a sign of very weak demand, as in at least one advertised price I could find, the dealer was selling below what they paid for the product. Now we get a camera that is really only different in the sensor (and FX sensors cost basically the same to manufacturer, no matter what the pixel count on them [yes, there's probably a modest yield difference, but not enough to justify much of a price change]), yet we have a substantive price increase. Anyone else see the problem with this picture? Nikon's asking us to pay more for the equivalent. I say equivalent because you can look at it this way: you can buy the same camera with either high ISO and dynamic range improvements, or you can have it with more pixels. For some reason, more pixels costs US$3000. Really?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now some will say this: Nikon needs to pay off the R&D on the new sensor, while the D3/D700 sensor has already been amortized over six figures worth of bodies. Maybe. But this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you charge way more for the new sensor, you'll sell less of them, which means that the R&D doesn't get amortized nearly as fast. And think of this, too: if indeed the D3x indicates that a D700x (or D800) with the same sensor is likely, is Nikon really going to charge significantly more for that subsequent model than the 5DII and A900? Nikon appears to be trying to be the premium price player. If so, the launch was further botched. [/FONT]
here jim i have presents for you
thanks for my red one
i plan on getting a scarlet a epic 645 and a 617
these were shot on my red ; )
What % of people view most of your images as 'prints'???
...LM (at least some Canon stuff left, no?)
What % of people view most of your images as 'prints'???
Best all-around FF body, is the D700; bet Tannin would disagree on that......but we haven't seen the reviews of the 5DMkII yet? What % of total users of the 5DMkII are buying it for HD Video? It's another feature to the 5DMkII, but one not likely to be the majority of image capture with that, it's still primarily a still image capture device and will be judged mostly on that basis. Right now, the 5DMkII is the *only* option for FF *and* high-ISO (still need to see what limitations that involves, but until updated 1Ds, it's alone at the top, no peers).
So what's the rest of your stuff, LM? Nikon?Yeah, just few. Six Canon digital bodies, including three 1 series 24x36 bodies (54MP in just those), 13 L lenses, other lenses, flashes, etc...
Your shadows called. They wanted me to tell you that they miss you.Perhaps I'm too easy to please, but I like this one I recently took quite a bit.
Your shadows called. They wanted me to tell you that they miss you.
I'll give it a shot if you're inclined to share.Oh, if anyone is interested in the original 34MP/32-bit image, let me know how to get it to you (72MB zipped). I would be interested to see other people's interpretation.
I'll give it a shot if you're inclined to share.
I tried to un-HDR it See if you like it...
http://scpublicgallery.smugmug.com/gallery/6873557_jcFWF/1/#439746778_tZa8a-A-LB
That is nice. Did you do that from the super-processed one on Flickr, or with the 32bpp original?
Personal preference I guess, I was going for the dramatic look.I think the clouds seem a bit too close/dark
I like the light/dark down the ridgeline, and that the valley floor/bay stands out more. I think the clouds seem a bit too close/dark, and you lost some of the detail in the sunbeams as they left the cloud.
For those who thought Canon would walk away with the ballgame with their EOS 5D Mark II, these initial shots from the D3X show that Nikon is still in the game. These shots also lend credence to the sensor in the Nikon D3X being different from the one in the Sony Alpha A900: It's hard to imagine that the differences in image quality between these two cameras are all the result of differences in image processing.
Stay tuned for image analysis of the Nikon D3X and the Canon EOS-5D Mark II, hopefully both coming before Christmas. (5DmkII is almost done, but we'll be scrambling to put the story together on the D3X next week.)
Pardon my ignorance.
Do Pros / semi-pros print prints on a printer by themselves? Wouldn't one get better output at a professional photo print shop using photo printers and photo paper (the old fashioned way)?
I failed to support my tripod adequately for the wind on a cliff