dSLR thread

[e_dawg]

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.

 

[LunarMist]

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.

Crazy. I don't know many pros that would risk a paying gig and their reputation on such a new and questionable piece of gear.

 

[ddrueding]

He also has some 50Ds, but I'm looking forward to playing with the 5DIIs.

And he isn't a pro, just a (fairly rich) friend.

 

[LunarMist]

The 50D would be a bad choice for weddings. It is good, inexpense teleconverter for long lenses, but not what one wants for blacks and whites in lower light.

 

[ddrueding]

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. He specifically said that Canon can do 80% of what Nikon can do for 50% of the price, citing the interface as his reason for switching. And it looks like he is going pro, with a studio and regular paid work.

Here is his play account.

 

[ddrueding]

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. He specifically said that Canon can do 80% of what Nikon can do for 50% of the price, citing the interface as his reason for switching. And it looks like he is going pro, with a studio and regular paid work.

Here is his play account.

 

[e_dawg]

Bah, the guy ditched all his Canon gear and brought a pair of D700s and an army of lenses I wasn't familiar with.

He could have done a lot worse than the D700 + the lenses you mentioned. 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.

There was an 18-something F2.8 and an 85/1.4 that were very good.

You mean the 28-70/2.8? I don't recall Nikon making an 18-anything f/2.8.

Now I'm the only guy around here with Canon gear.

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.

One photographer I talked to (who has Nikon gear) asked me what I use. I said I had a bunch of gear, but if I had to pick a favourite, it would be my Olympus E-3 + 11-22 and 14-35/2 lenses. She then asked me "really? Does Olympus make cameras with interchangeable lenses?" Now that might be cause for feeling like you're "alone". But when people see my prints, it doesn't really matter if I used Olympus or Polaroid, now does it?

 

[udaman]

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?

What % of people view most of your images as 'prints'???

I still have my used Canon T/S 24/3.5 in box, in need of a low priced FF Canon body...doesn't that count? *snif* *snif*

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).

Can't say if I had the luxury income, I wouldn't have the D700 & all 3 of the PC lenses with it...but that's all too much money to put into a dSLR, IMHO.

I think the $8k dSLR is going the way of the dinosaur, worldwide recession and all. IMHO, potential for a high(er) ISO FF 12-14MP Rebel is huge. If only Canon wasn't so conservative in their mindset. It's like Nikon is the Apple of the camera industry (easier/faster UI, ergonomics), and Canon is the M$ of the camera industry .

More fall out, complaining about the excessive cost of the D3x-

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/whatsnew/

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.

You thought my posts were long, Thom Hogan must have no life then...a staggering (M$ Word count) 3,6K word entry:

http://www.bythom.com/nikond3xcomments.htm

[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]

And then there is the Red line, some people have lots of $$$ to spend on their tools/toys of choice (which reminds me I saw a Porsche Carrera GT infront of an organic coffee and tea restaurant/cafe in South Beverly Hills last weekend, 1st one I've seen) :

Real frame rates...... cost real money.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23216

(^^^today they do, but frame rates are dependent on the image processor engines, and we all know that tech changes rapidly from year to year)

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=340115&postcount=10

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 ; )

 

[ddrueding]

When I said, "only guy around here" I meant literally around here. I knew two others who had Canon gear, and we would swap lenses and try out stuff, but one got out completely and the other switched. I still think the 5DII is the right camera for me, but I don't know when I'll be able to try one in the real world. Oh, well. I have some debts to cover first anyway. Back to the XSI...

 

[LunarMist]

What % of people view most of your images as 'prints'???

In practice, 100%. I see the images on screen when working with them, but the end "user" sees the print. That part is not different from the darkroom days.

Images shown on the web are at a substantially reduced resolution, so sharpness and noise, etc. are not a concern. In fact many people asked what kind of wonderful digital camera I used in some posts, when the images were in fact from film scans.

 

[LunarMist]

...LM (at least some Canon stuff left, no?)

Yeah, just few. Six Canon digital bodies, including three 1 series 24x36 bodies (54MP in just those), 13 L lenses, other lenses, flashes, etc...

 

[ddrueding]

You mean the 28-70/2.8? I don't recall Nikon making an 18-anything f/2.8.

I actually meant the 14-24/2.8, though he also had the 28-70/2.8, and the already mentioned 85/1.4. I think he shot about 30GB of 12MP RAW while he was here.

 

[e_dawg]

BTW, congrats on the marriage

 

[e_dawg]

What % of people view most of your images as 'prints'???

It depends... For any pic of value and for anybody who I can physically show the pics to, 100% will be in print as the primary medium. I share online images for people who are located too far away for me to conveniently show them prints in person (or for posting on various Internet discussion boards). Also, images that are not that worthy of printing may not get printed for a long time, if ever. They may only be shown online to some people for fun, critique, or for posterity.

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).

That's why I said "possibly" best all around, and also why I qualified that with "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."

I wonder how you could be so definitive and absolute in your assessment of the 5DMkII with so little to go on. How much experience do you have shooting with, processing, and printing files from any of these FF cameras? It's hard to know without sufficient hands-on time, IMO...

 

[mubs]

Yeah, just few. Six Canon digital bodies, including three 1 series 24x36 bodies (54MP in just those), 13 L lenses, other lenses, flashes, etc...

So what's the rest of your stuff, LM? Nikon?

 

[ddrueding]

Perhaps I'm too easy to please, but I like this one I recently took quite a bit.

 

[Stereodude]

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.

 

[ddrueding]

Your shadows called. They wanted me to tell you that they miss you.

Well, here it is without the HDR/tone mapping. I think it needs something. I always have a hard time letting parts go completely black.

 

[ddrueding]

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.

 

[e_dawg]

Looks like nice artwork! (seriously) ... unfortunately not that realistic compared to a typical photograph

 

[LunarMist]

I don't know what the subject is supposed to be, so it is difficult to determine why the exposure looks so wrong - but it does. Is it a special effects exercise?

 

[paugie]

Check out this link from theonlinephotographer.com

http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...grapher/2008/12/sony-vs-nikon-v.html#comments

the author writes about his impressions of the A900, D700 and the 5DMarkII

 

[Stereodude]

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.

 

[ddrueding]

I'll give it a shot if you're inclined to share.

Check your PMs

 

[Stereodude]

Here's my take on it.

 

[ddrueding]

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.

Very nice, thanks for sharing.

 

[e_dawg]

I tried to un-HDR it See if you like it...

http://scpublicgallery.smugmug.com/gallery/6873557_jcFWF/1/#439746778_tZa8a-A-LB

 

[ddrueding]

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?

 

[e_dawg]

That is nice. Did you do that from the super-processed one on Flickr, or with the 32bpp original?

I actually used the 8 bpp 1600 x 1200 JPEG SD posted on imageshack into Photoshop and flogged it a bit. If you see very rough transitions there, it's because I did a quick and dirty job using the rectangular marquee to do some masking (you'll notice it on the right hand side where the clouds meet the land)

 

[Stereodude]

I think the clouds seem a bit too close/dark

Personal preference I guess, I was going for the dramatic look.

 

[udaman]

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.

Somewhere, way back in this thread; I provided a link to a discussion of how visualization is compromised/affected by various settings/nature of browsers and internet standards.

Viewing the same image, from the actual file offline can be a significant difference.

Define 'detail'?

If you where to display that image on a larger screen, at a certain resolution, with a Nec Spectraview monitor, would the 'detail' of the rays of light breaking through the clouds "seem" more 'detailed'? Projected on a very large screen so the perspective is more "life like", will your perception of the visuals be different?

Too dark, tilt your monitor, that will fix it .

Perhaps the clouds were really that dark, yet your image capture equipment was not able to render accurately? Would need to be in a side-by-side comparison out there on the hilltop, wouldn't we ? Ken Rockwell claims photography is 'art' and as such the same image rendered from his 'eye' (skewed ), would have highly saturated, 'wow', vibrant color intensity and probably as high-contrast as possible.

What my monitor calibration is set for, what the contrast capabilities are, tonal range reproduction, etc is/can going to cause a disparity from what any given person will see or perceive even 'offline'. Then if you try to print the image, you'll run into limitations of what the print media can reproduce What looks pleasing to you on a smaller screen, may be something you don't like as much, looks too compressed on tonal scale shadows/highlights,when viewing on a much larger screen/or the opposite.

 

[ddrueding]

I completely agree with all you have just said, uda. The image will look different on different screens/prints with different software, and if taken by different cameras, and all of them only resemble what was actually there in real life.

I would LOVE to have a camera/software/monitor/printer that could replicate what I see in real life; that much contrast and dynamic range would make the images very dramatic. To have elements as bright as the sun, yet still be able to see the trees in the valley shaded by the hill would be excellent. But I can't, which is why I make the pictures more like art; because that is the only way I know to represent the parts I like in a way that can be displayed/printed.

I spent probably an hour with the 32bpp original up, just moving the exposure slider around, looking at the different parts at their true illumination level. I wish there was a way to show the picture like that (perhaps a short video?), because that I what I (think I) really want.

 

[udaman]

NR off @ISO 6400.

comparison with the latest, greatest high MP, full-frame dSLR's

Canon 5DmkII $2.8k

Nikon 3Dx $8k

Looks to me like Nikon could have done the marketing hype high ISO game, like Canon is playing. In other words, @ISO6400 they are both fairly close. Only difference Canon's 5D is using 6400 as the top 'normal' ISO range, with 2 additional higher gain settings, whereas the Nikon is already at the 2nd high level gain setting, ISO1600 being the top of the 'normal' range. At least on a pixel peeping basis, they are close.

I did not d/l the jpg for the D3x @3200 as I'm on dialup and it took ~2hrs just to look at these two images Raw files from the 3DX are 30MB! But I would assume the 3DX's noise levels @3200 to be equivalent to the 5DmkII @6400.

Canon's images, typical for Canon...more green and red chroma noise. Saturation of colors looks better on the 5DmkII, see the small color squares test chart at the bottom of the image. White square looks better on the Canon, red on the Nikon appears washed out, perhaps even orange/red. Fine text is no more readable on either, but detail (resolution?) in shadows and overall goes to the Nikon. Notice on the red strands of thread, there is more detail, individual strands in the Nikon...where the tread is bound by the wrapper.

5DmkII might have the advantage in DR, can't really tell from this image. Appears 5DmkII has a slight advantage in shadow detail where pencil & paint brush sit inside the coffee cup?




http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3X/FULLRES/D3XhSLI6400_NR_OFF.HTM


http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/FULLRES/E5D2hSLI06400_NR_OFF.HTM



I was hoping the 5DmkII @6400 would match the 450D's noise levels @1600, such is not the case; @6.4k the 5DMkII has significantly more noise (could this be PP's with a better quality product like DxO?). However, @1600 the 5DMkII's IQ far surpasses the 450D...but then it should, costs 3x as much.

Let me know when they put a D3X sensor into a D90FX, or a 5DMkII derivative in a Rebel...for $1.3k or less...all this semi-pro and pro level dSLR's are just too expensive. Does Canon or Nikon understand there's a worldwide recession going on that will last for more than a year or two?

That being said, looking at ugly artifacts in the Canon 1000D as compared to the 450D, the 1000D is a disappointment, not worthy or consideration for me.

First Nikon D3X test images now online!
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1229806519.html

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.)

 

[udaman]

D3x tops 1DsMkIII in *all* DXO sensor performance metrics...still would have been a Canon killer if the price was thousands less. So when do we expect the 1DsMk4 upgrade?


http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/DxOMark-reviews/DxOMark-review-for-the-Nikon-D3X

DR of 13.7 only at lowest ISO (1st to top Fuji), drops to only 8 @highest ISO(but still fully equal to the D700 @same high ISO...so impressive, considering pixel size smaller than all but the A900)


Damn, can only compare 3 cams at a time:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en...0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Canon

 

[mubs]

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)?

 

[Handruin]

As an amateur, I send my prints out to be done on photo paper in either matte or glossy depending on what I want for the image.

 

[e_dawg]

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)?

With professional photo print shops, yes, you could get better output than most consumer-level printing solutions, but you can definitely do better than most mainstream photo labs if you have a good printer and know what you're doing with paper, colour management, and device/paper profiling. Often, the reason to avoid printing at home for most pros is the cost issue. Commercial printers have lower cost per photo than any home printer. It is not a quality thing.

 

[ddrueding]

You also have to be pretty damn good to make a home printer outperform what you get from a shop. I've looked into a color managed workflow (calibrated and cooperating monitor/software/printer), and it is darn tricky/expensive.

On a different note, I failed to support my tripod adequately for the wind on a cliff and my XSi and 10-22 took a fall . The onboard flash now does exactly what it did on the 20D I got from Tony (only works if the camera is inverted) and the lens chassis drags a bit on both ends of the zoom range (14-20 is fine, on either end of that the front moves outward and binds slightly). I haven't managed to get all the mud out of everything yet, it should be easier once it dries.

So, do I use this as the opportunity to get a 5DII? Or just have my stuff cleaned/repaired and keep going? The honeymoon was only $1k over budget (only?) at about $1k a day all inclusive.

I'll end my excessivly long, multi-topic Uda-post now...

 

[paugie]

oh wow, that accident is the worst of nightmares come true. I commiserate with you, Dave.

 

[Tannin]

I failed to support my tripod adequately for the wind on a cliff

Been there, done that, paid the price. Only in my case it was a huge sand dune in the middle of Western Australia. That was back in my digiscoping days: broke the scope (it had to go back to Austria to be repaired at the factory), and my best Coolpix.

Ouch!

Not a mistake either of us will make again in a hurry, I think.