Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

Sports Corner Rules
Sports Corner Resource
  

FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell

  

Look at the poor IQ of this NBA photo
  
 
gschlact
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Look at the poor IQ of this NBA photo


Ok, this thread is to demonstrate just how far digital photography has come and taken us. We wine about ISO 6400 / 12800 / 25k etc, but most photos taken digitally in the last 5 years would likely surpass the image quality of this likely 'pre-digital' February 1999 image of Kobe Bryant and Allen Iverson.

from article: The Players' Tribune

-Guy








Apr 20, 2017 at 02:13 AM
glort
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Look at the poor IQ of this NBA photo


I think that's a pretty poor example even from the time period.
Looks like fast film heavily cropped. It's not out of focus, it's just grainy through what I believe is over enlargement.

I am right with you on the sentiment of what you are saying though.
A camera comes out and it's the best thing since sliced bread..... apart from the fact it does not have every abstract feature every shooter out there wants of course. Hope i'm still around to laugh at people when it gets to the stage they complain about the coffee their camera brews for them on the Job as they surely one day will when the tech gets there.

Other than that, a new toy comes out and by extrapolation of repeated advise, the old one is no longer a fit and decent tool to do the work anymore. 2-3 years pass and that toy is now unacceptable for the self same work that nothing has changed about it 20 years. God forbid you should use the model XXVI now the model XXVII is out, that's giving your clients sub standard work and ripping them off not to mention the new cam is 2 grams lighter and 1mm smaller therefore making the thing SO much better to use due to the weight and size reduction.

Camera's are like computers and a lot of other electronics. They are at such a high standard now that there really hasn't been any significant development in over 5 years. I just updated my 7D to a 7DII and apart from the dual slots, I could barely tell them apart.

I would literally bet my house no client will ever see any difference in image quality.
Of course I'm not a real photographer. That does not happen till I get a 5D in the latest model. Once that came out, all the other 5D's before it became incapable of taking a decent pic. Ask anyone with a 5d4 or 37..., whatever they are up to now.

I think it's time shooters stopped wanting the camera to do everything for them and went from walking talking, button pushing bipods to skilled professionals who knew what they were doing and didn't need the tool to be such a massive crutch and do all the work for them.

They quality and capability was in the gear maybe as much as 10 years ago. Since then the main thing camera's have significantly achieved is keeping the makers profits up.



Apr 20, 2017 at 10:10 AM
MikeyV
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Look at the poor IQ of this NBA photo


What you say is so true. I am by no stretch of the imagination a professional, but I have been looked at askance at a certain eagle destination because I was using my 7D2 and a 100-400 II lens, and not the latest 1DX on a 600 f/4. Looked at askance and then dismissed as a "tourist."

It's a pretty sad commentary.



Apr 20, 2017 at 11:53 AM
cocodrillo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Look at the poor IQ of this NBA photo


Yup.... its the craftsman that matters, not the tool. That said, I really like the flexibility that comes with the low noise high ISO on the new models. The photo above took me back to the frustrations of pushing TMZ to cover indoor sports at university. Of course, the inability to crop also taught me to shoot really tight.


Apr 20, 2017 at 12:09 PM
P Alesse
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Look at the poor IQ of this NBA photo


And despite the unbelievable sensors and IQ today, they still strobe it.


Apr 20, 2017 at 12:45 PM
MikalWGrass
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Look at the poor IQ of this NBA photo


MLKEYV - tell them that some can take a better photo with a ham sandwich than with the latest gear full of bells and whistles, and see what they say. Then tell them that the sandwich comes with chips and an 800/1.8 lens.


Apr 20, 2017 at 02:29 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



glort
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Look at the poor IQ of this NBA photo


MikeyV wrote:
I was using my 7D2 and a 100-400 II lens, and not the latest 1DX on a 600 f/4.


I'm looking at buying a 100-400 II ATM. :0)

Honestly, I couldn't give a fig what people think of the gear I'm using.
I shoot for money not the ego trip or glory seeking from others.
When they make more money than I do, I'll be impressed. I know a lot of the ego manics I come across make nothing and are only doing it to get some attention no one pays them otherwise.

I could buy any damn camera I wanted. It's only money, not like you need to have years of training or qualifications to buy a camera. I also find it funny that many of the ego trippers think top of the line Nikons or canons are a big deal but wouldn't know a hassy or Leica if it bit them on the backside nor have a clue what they are worth.

It makes NO sense in any business to over capitalise on equipment. My 7's do everything I want them to and much more and in over 30 years in this game, not ONE single paying client has ever complained to me about my gear or lack of image quality or anything else technical.
I shoot in rain and dust and throw my gear around and do not baby it. I have never had a problem but if I did I rather have 3 cameras than put all my eggs in the one basket. Not saying there is anything wrong with top end gear jut that the work -I- do does not justify it nor would it improve my sales or profits to have it when the lesser gear is 110% capable of the work I earn my living from.

I could pull out my old 10D and take a typical picture and no client or shooter would know the difference. Yes, in extreme conditions like the black hole ever wedding shooter seems to think lurks in the corner of every church sucking the light right out of the Joint, there may be some noise difference but for 99% majority of pics I take, no one would know the difference and the paying clients certainly could not care less about the tool.

They pay for the results they get not the toys used to produce them.

They don't know what I use, they could care less about my gear but what they do care a lot about, recognise comment on and pull their money out their pocket for is the CONTENT of the image.... even when I do stuff it up.

Not so much with other pros ( real, earn real money type pros) but especially with the " I love taking pictures" posers and ego maniacs I see so often, you can tell they really are all wind and Bullshit.
You see them strutting around using their camera as a substitute for a lack of manhood and you know if you threw them a manual Medium format camera they wouldn't know WTF an aperture or a shutter speed really was let alone how to load the film or get the exposure within about 4 stops just by looking at the light and setting the camera themselves.

Yes, I'm a dinosaur and proud of it but it wasn't so long ago when a lot of shooters, real shooters, took a pride in using basic gear. The ego trip was that you took that brilliant pic using ONLY that POS gear. The cred of course coming from the fact you took that DESPITE the gear and using your own skill and abilities and overcoming the equipment's shortfalls.

Now days a lot of the cred just comes down to money. Throw money at the most expensive body and lens and you pounce around like you know what you are doing and look down on anyone with lesser gear.
I love it when people do that to me because straight away I know they actually know beans about what they are doing because their gear fixation gives away their real abilities every single time. I have seen many tryhards particulay shooting sports that think because they have top line bodies and glass they are somehow better. I always like to innocently ask what they avereage sales wise out of gigs like this and when you find out it's nothing to not much more and express wonderment at why they do it for no money and roll your eyes when they say " They like taking pics" it soon changes who's intimidated and who's smiling.

When people start using tools of the trade as a crutch for their insecurities and shortcomings of skills, doesn't matter what they have hanging off their neck, you are too busy laughing to be intimidated!



Apr 20, 2017 at 04:04 PM
glort
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Look at the poor IQ of this NBA photo


P Alesse wrote:
And despite the unbelievable sensors and IQ today, they still strobe it.


Yeah, and carry on about a F1.2 lens being too slow and wanting to upgrade to the F1.1 new model because it's faster.




Apr 20, 2017 at 11:50 PM
MikeyV
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Look at the poor IQ of this NBA photo


glort wrote:
I'm looking at buying a 100-400 II ATM. :0)



You would not regret buying this lens. It's amazingly versatile. It's the one that stays on my camera. And, if you use a 1.4X TC, there is no image degradation that I have ever seen.




Apr 21, 2017 at 11:12 AM
CW100
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Look at the poor IQ of this NBA photo


MikeyV wrote:
You would not regret buying this lens. It's amazingly versatile. It's the one that stays on my camera. And, if you use a 1.4X TC, there is no image degradation that I have ever seen.



right, but I'm on the fence about upgrading to the 100-400 II version. lately I find I'm shooting more birds and the 150-600 zooms could be better if you're at the 600mm end




Apr 21, 2017 at 06:41 PM
MikeyV
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Look at the poor IQ of this NBA photo


My Sigma 150-600C is nice at Conowingo if I have to shoot across the Pond but the Canon 100-400 II is more versatile and, at least for me, works better under more conditions than the Sigma, indoors and outdoors. Of course, YMMV. I'm just saying that, IMO, you cannot go wrong with the Canon zoom.

And, I apologize. Not trying to hijack the thread.



Apr 22, 2017 at 11:17 AM
Big Hands
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Look at the poor IQ of this NBA photo


@ glort: While I agree that the cost of one's gear doesn't make one better than another, I disagree that how much money one makes from photography is a reliable indicator of one's skill with a camera. A savvy business person would likely be a more accurate assumption IMHO.

I have seen plenty of photos I wouldn't hang in a dog house from people making a killing shooting youth sports.

The only criteria I would use to judge the proficiency of a shooter is to look at what they produce regardless of whether or not they are paid for their work.

Is it well executed?

Is it presented well?

Is it a compelling image?

If yes, then they are good.

Can they do it consistently?

If yes, then they are very good.

Can they do it in a variety of situations (often difficult for one reason or another), and in a variety of ways?

If yes, then they are super good.



May 09, 2017 at 09:00 AM







FM Forums | Sports Corner | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password