Ralph Conway wrote:
But I do not see the use (for me) for a lense combo of 8.0.
You mentioned this first... but later on, you wrote this:
Ralph Conway wrote:
But 1D X is still without AF at f 8.0 ...
So, do you feel that the 1D X doesn't meet your need, Ralph or are you fine with it ? Just kidding. It is fine one way or the other, I have some time to kill at the computer right now .
Not for me
The next camera I would like to purchase should fullfill the new standard set by 1D X.
I guess for the near future only one camera will do that.
16MP is way not enough for me!
On the other side I will wait till 5D III will be announced anyway.
And of course I want to see high ISO samples of all coming gear (1D X, D800, 5D III) and compare. What I saw from D4 sample images did not give me the feeling I should upgrade from 5D MK II.
AGeoJO wrote:
You mentioned this first... but later on, you wrote this:
So, do you feel that the 1D X doesn't meet your need, Ralph or are you fine with it ? Just kidding. It is fine one way or the other, I have some time to kill at the computer right now .
Yes. I forgott to explaine: THAT WAS A JOKE.
I do not believe I ever would shoot with an F8 lense or combo.
I am old fashioned. Still using the center point when I use AF. And I would never again buy a lense, thatīs AF can not be correct whenever I want. Yes, I still use MF, too. There is no camera jet, that knows, where I want to have the focus. It does not matter how many AF points are there and how they are arranged. EOS 3 could! It was the only one. I just had to view at what I wanted to have in fokus (within the range of the 45 AF points, of course).
Did you ever try to focus manual with F 8.0? Even 5.6 is to dark for me. So I really do not care about if 1D X does not auto focus at 8.0. If it focuses excellent up to 4.0 it is enough for me.
Again: 1D X looks fantastic to me. If samples show what I expect it is my choice. Of course I have to clear financing first.
Ralph Conway wrote:
Not for me
The next camera I would like to purchase should fullfill the new standard set by 1D X.
I guess for the near future only one camera will do that.
16MP is way not enough for me!
On the other side I will wait till 5D III will be announced anyway.
And of course I want to see high ISO samples of all coming gear (1D X, D800, 5D III) and compare. What I saw from D4 sample images did not give me the feeling I should upgrade from 5D MK II.
Gosh Ralph,
Nine pages down and your still trying to convince the world (Yourself??) that the 1Dx is going to cream the D4.
What is the point?? what do you need in a camera now that you cant achieve with a 7D, a G12 a S95 or in my case my D7k??
For some one who's first camera was a Brownie Box as mine was; you know what?? No amount of technology will replace the basic requirement of composing a photograph.
The only thing I know is the more I know, the less I know. Go buy some books by a photographer you admire or better still spend your money on a course from a pro who's work you admire.
Tim Ashton wrote:
Gosh Ralph,
Nine pages down and your still trying to convince the world (Yourself??) that the 1Dx is going to cream the D4.
What is wrong with that? We are in a thread about a new Nikon in an Canon forum. I think it will be the cream.
What is the point?? what do you need in a camera now that you cant achieve with a 7D, a G12 a S95 or in my case my D7k??
Controllable DOF and IQ, Tim. To do my job I often need highest IQ in high ISO. Non of those cameras holds stand compared to my 5D MK II. And with that I often come to the limits. The only one that compares in ISO/IQ is Nikons D3s. I guess I would use one if it would meet my needs in resolution, too. Based on the facts. It would even not (with 9MP more).
For some one who's first camera was a Brownie Box as mine was; you know what?? No amount of technology will replace the basic requirement of composing a photograph.
The only thing I know is the more I know, the less I know. Go buy some books by a photographer you admire or better still spend your money on a course from a pro who's work you admire.
Tim
Thank you for the good advice, Tim. I already thought about it. I really do know nothing. Reading a book or visiting a workshop might help. I guess I will do, when I find some time in between my assignments, travellings and the workshops I hold myself.
I startet with a self assembled "KOSMOS" SLR when I was 12. Quality of that camera was a pain. But it worked! Thatīs a couple of years ago now.
We all can learn by others. I tried to visit your website. It did not exist :-/. Please visit mine. I would be happy about any suggestion to enhance my photography.
Ralph Conway wrote:
Please visit mine. I would be happy about any suggestion to enhance my photography.
Sincerally
Ralph
Ralph, I have just visited you gallery and I must tell you in all honesty it is less than perfect.
However, once I show you how to shoot ducks, then it will become near perfect.
Kidding you, of course, I have nothing but admiration for folks like yourself who show their strong creative vision in every picture they make.
AGeoJO wrote:
But none of the APS-C camera bodies allows AF at f/8.0 anyway, which is the point of contention in this case.
But that's the point of high pixel density. My 7D + 500 has more reach than my 1D III + 500 + 1.4x, so there's far less need to slap on a TC and you get the benefits of larger aperture be it DoF control, lower ISO or faster shutter, along with AF with any AF point.
ct8282 wrote:
You could just buy the D4. You know you want too....
But why given the mk II superteles (if they ship) now have serious weight advantages and better mfd. The Nikon superteles are incredibly hard to get hold of too. It'd be a brave man that had a large investment in big glass to just switch systems. Also D4 is even lower pixel density than the 1D X and they have no 800 f/5.6 as an option.
p.12 #10 · D4: $6,000, AF @ f/8 and ships February
Ralph,
I have been to your website numerous times over the years and truly cannot see what you are missing with the current crop of cameras and lenses.
I find your composition excellent and love the way you achieve engagement with your subjects, so why all this about one brand over the other? Do you really think the camera maketh the man?
I apologise for the tone of my last par but with what is available to us today, we a truly blessed as photographers
p.12 #11 · D4: $6,000, AF @ f/8 and ships February
Pixel Perfect wrote:
But why given the mk II superteles (if they ship) now have serious weight advantages and better mfd. The Nikon superteles are incredibly hard to get hold of too. It'd be a brave man that had a large investment in big glass to just switch systems. Also D4 is even lower pixel density than the 1D X and they have no 800 f/5.6 as an option.
I agree. I have said it in both the Nikon and Canon boards that both the 1Dx and D4 are clearly phenomenal cameras and are the cream of the crop from both manufacturers. There's no point arguing about which is better because, to be honest, neither is. Sure they may have minor (and they really are minor) advantages in certain areas but lets face it there is no major advantage of one over the other. They are both top of the line and my guess is they will far exceed the ability of almost all photographers who use them as I just can't see anyone using them close to 100% of their capabilities.
The price difference is marginal too so it really does come down to whichever system you are already invested in. I have pre-ordered the D4 (not because I really need it but because I had a particularly good year at work so have the money and it's my 30th birthday in 3 weeks so am treating myself) but if I had Canon glass I would buy the 1Dx.
Both cameras will produce fantastic images which is really what this game is about so with a D4 or 1Dx in your hand, my guess is you wont be disappointed either way.
p.12 #12 · D4: $6,000, AF @ f/8 and ships February
PetKal wrote:
Ralph, I have just visited you gallery and I must tell you in all honesty it is less than perfect.
Oh Peter, you confirmed my greatest fear.: That I am far from beeing perfect ...
However, once I show you how to shoot ducks, then it will become near perfect.
You are very kind. Thank you. When I visit Canada next time (would be first time, too) I would love to learn more about shooting ducks (I ate duck breast for christmas together with Yvonne. She showed me how to cook/roast it and that already was an outstanding experience). And I am thankfull that you like to help me in getting nearer to beeing perfect. I am very sad, that I can not pay it forward. But maybe after some german beer (Warsteiner as far I remember) you might forgett this? Maybe I can smuggle in a small keg ...
Not kidding you. I have great respect for folks shooting BIF/BOG (birds on ground). I never did. And I think its an art of its own freezing the beauty of life in any way.
p.12 #13 · D4: $6,000, AF @ f/8 and ships February
Tim Ashton wrote:
Ralph,
I have been to your website numerous times over the years and truly cannot see what you are missing with the current crop of cameras and lenses.
I find your composition excellent and love the way you achieve engagement with your subjects, so why all this about one brand over the other? Do you really think the camera maketh the man?
I apologise for the tone of my last par but with what is available to us today, we a truly blessed as photographers
Tim
You are absolutely right. I myself mentioned a couple of times in any gear discussion, that not the camera makes a good photographer. But a better gear often can help a good photographer to get even more (and greater) good results. Its not one over the other for me. I just get bored about Canonians and Nikonians telling Nikon did it, Canon not. Or my gears quality is much better than yours. And itīs my way of humor (I understand many will/would not understand) to provocate (them) with my posts.
What I was missing with crop cameras was the higher flexibility FF gives one in controlling depth of field. And I like low noise/high ISO for it, too. It enables not only shots in low available light, but to shoot wide open, too. All three termes together increase the creative possibilities in my way of photography by far.
Concerning the actual situation. There is so good equipment around people like me even did not allow themselfs to dream about just a couple of years ago. And in most cases any new product gives a further enhancement. I should be adult enough just to smile about a statement like "my D3 is better in high ISO for about 2 stops than 5d II!" Reality is its equal by near half the resolution. And reality is too, that I am not grown up enough just to smile about that.
Indeed I think there is a responsibility in such a forum, too. It might leed people to purchase something (really expensive) under wrong circumstances or based on "opinions" that are just not true.
But your question was, why I try to convince the whole world that 1D X is the better choise (or if I just want to convince myself). The answer is: I really do not know! From Nikons D4 I just know that I am disapointed. The rumored ISO 102k (that would have been a real breakthrough to me) turned out to be the near equal ISO 12.800, the 3Ds already offered. My existing 3 year old gear already delivers (nearly) the same. And yes, I would wish the 1D X to fullfill itīs marketing promises. They (Canon) did a couple of times in the past (never purchased a 1D MK III - and if, I guess I would not have any problems concerning AF issues anyway). And I WANT to see the 1D X has highest IQ in ISO 25 & 50k. So ... yes: As long I did not see any believeable result I want to convince myself, 1D X is the final solution for al my needs.
Till that and surely long time after I just go out and shoot with that great gear, I already use.
Might have all of you a great weekend.
. 