alundeb wrote:
Yes. But not a camera to "upgrade" to for you and me
Not for me, since the 5D2 does beautiful work already for my photography and I don't need the higher speed or beefier (read, "heavier") construction of the 1DX for my work. For those who need such features in their cameras, the 1DX looks like it will be a very fine camera, indeed. (If I needed a new body right now, it would be a 5D3. If I were a Nikon shooter, I would be looking at a D800.)
The whole business about poor low ISO DR performance is largely a forumtographer meme that is almost entirely irrelevant to real photography.
The entire digital photography camera market seems to be firing on all cylinders right now. A bunch of manufacturers are making really excellent cameras, lenses, and other gear - and not just Canon and Nikon at this point. We see very interesting and compelling developments in the rangefinder-style cameras as well, great stuff is happening in the MF format space, and more. Photographers today are more empowered by and less limited by their equipment than at any point in the history of the medium. It is a great time move beyond the forumtographer mode of searching for and fretting about this and that little difference in specs, to select a camera, and get on with the work of making compelling photographs using this gear.
gdanmitchell wrote:
The whole business about poor low ISO DR performance is largely a forumtographer meme that is almost entirely irrelevant to real photography.
Dan
Hard to believe you saying this..even my grand kids know the differences between 10D and 30D
The whole business about poor low ISO DR performance is largely a forumtographer meme that is almost entirely irrelevant to real photography.
The entire digital photography camera market seems to be firing on all cylinders right now. A bunch of manufacturers are making really excellent cameras, lenses, and other gear - and not just Canon and Nikon at this point. We see very interesting and compelling developments in the rangefinder-style cameras as well, great stuff is happening in the MF format space, and more. Photographers today are more empowered by and less limited by their equipment than at any point in the history of the medium. It is a great time move beyond the forumtographer mode of searching for and fretting about this and that little difference in specs, to select a camera, and get on with the work of making compelling photographs using this gear.
Great post, Dan! Love the "forumtographer" moniker. He's posting this stuff on multiple forums. Clearly, very proud.
Three pages on this topic, so far, and not one actual photograph posted since the beginning of page one.
The whole business about poor low ISO DR performance is largely a forumtographer meme that is almost entirely irrelevant to real photography.
The entire digital photography camera market seems to be firing on all cylinders right now. A bunch of manufacturers are making really excellent cameras, lenses, and other gear - and not just Canon and Nikon at this point. We see very interesting and compelling developments in the rangefinder-style cameras as well, great stuff is happening in the MF format space, and more. Photographers today are more empowered by and less limited by their equipment than at any point in the history of the medium. It is a great time move beyond the forumtographer mode of searching for and fretting about this and that little difference in specs, to select a camera, and get on with the work of making compelling photographs using this gear.
Dan ...Show more → Brett Beiner wrote:
Great post, Dan! Love the "forumtographer" moniker. He's posting this stuff on multiple forums. Clearly, very proud.
Three pages on this topic, so far, and not one actual photograph posted.
You also seem very proud. Proud to turn down someone who provided an answer to a question asked by many photographers.
cool. thanks for the post. Nothing surprising here. given 1dx was announced before 5d3, I would have been surprised if the sensor showed any significant improvement in DR compared to 5d3.
gdanmitchell wrote:
The whole business about poor low ISO DR performance is largely a forumtographer meme that is almost entirely irrelevant to real photography.
Sure it is irrelevant to many shots, but it's also plenty easy to find shot after shot after shot where it would be 100% entirely relevant. People don't actual bring it up just for fun you know, it's because they meet up plenty often scenarios where they are like man if only....
It is absolutely is not almost 100% entirely irrelevant to real photography. For some that may be true, but for plenty it's not. Part of the reason it also seems less relevant to some is because they have been so trained to not even imaging taking certain types of photos that they don't even notice what they are missing any more.
Brett Beiner wrote:
Great post, Dan! Love the "forumtographer" moniker. He's posting this stuff on multiple forums. Clearly, very proud.
Three pages on this topic, so far, and not one actual photograph posted since the beginning of page one.
Maybe there are no photos because this topic is on shadow recovery dr tests? What did you expect when you clicked the link? A gallery of portrait shots?
Brett Beiner wrote:
Nope. Just looking for real world, visual examples...since, you know...photography is a visual medium.
As you should also know it's pretty darn hard to compare using real world shots cameras shooting different subjects under different lighting at different times with raw converters cooking the books differently and pretty easy (and much quicker and much less waste of a time) and repeatable to do a quick measurement test.
Stoffer wrote:
I don't know whether this was aimed at me but in that case:
Probably me, but perhaps you. Who knows. Anyway, I better stop responding to any of these people, as you predicted, it will just turn into another mess. I shouldn't have responded at all.
Anyway, it's a pretty awesome sports cam to say the least. Crazy fps and response the nice new AF and insane high iso performance. low iso DR is the only negative, everything else seems to be pretty much perfect about it.
skibum5 wrote:
it's pretty darn hard to compare using real world shots cameras shooting different subjects under different lighting at different times with raw converters cooking the books differently and pretty easy (and much quicker and much less waste of a time) and repeatable to do a quick measurement test
Exactly! Why waste time looking at a bunch of stupid pictures when a quick scientific test will answer the question.
