Hulot wrote:
for the much better AF compared to the 5D2 maybe, certainly not for the better DR. I actually do some publicity for the 5D4, so it will sell even better
It also not selling for its ability to wake me up in the morning, make coffee and drive me to work. However it *is* selling well despite the fact it won't do this, and despite the many opinions that it is the photographic equivalent of a piece of gum stuck to the bootheel of the striding D800. I think that these DR and Megapixel deficiencies that garner so much attention and so much forum discussion are actually of little consequence to a very large number of people who buy the camera, or to Canon, who probably know their customer base much better than any of us.
Canon knows best what we have to want, lots of features but no coffee maker and no alarm clock and please please keep that great CMOS from 2007 for the next decade or even a bit longer
From a shareholder standpoint I could agree with you, from a photographer standpoint I wish they where open to new sonsor technology, like this one
dhphoto wrote:
I think you are being a bit influenced by what you read on the internet.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the low ISO image quality on the 5D3, 5D2, 6D etc etc.
They produce stunning files in the right hands.
Nothing wrong? They completely blow out of the water all the cameras photographers have used decades past, but somehow I don't see many photographers out shining the greats of the past.
What I'm saying is, that it's the same as Abe Lincoln taking a better shot out of musket than you could with an ultra-modern gun today, that can tell you how far away the target is and where to shoot.
There should be a rule that in order to bash a camera, one first needs to show two excellent photos taken with each camera for the argument to be valid.
They have a coupe of great cameras, why refuse to talk about the sensor quality. as for the two excellent photos taken with each camera, Fred has made them, I doubt he meant it for bashing even though he speaks about "huge chunk of color noise". It's facts https://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html
I wasn't talking about Fred's review, but whatever, a little bit of shadow noise hasn't stopped two centuries of great photographs from being taken. People constantly talking about cameras and sensors that are better than they know what to do with amuses me.
Pro tip: (to whom it may concern) Pick the one that fits your lenses and go do something better than wasting time on a forum. A forum member's post count divided by their registration date shows how much work they're not doing.
Kolor-Pikker wrote:
Pro tip: (to whom it may concern) Pick the one that fits your lenses and go do something better than wasting time on a forum. A forum member's post count divided by their registration date shows how much work they're not doing.
One reason I haven't posted here in a few weeks. ;-)
Kolor-Pikker wrote:
Pro tip: (to whom it may concern) Pick the one that fits your lenses and go do something better than wasting time on a forum. A forum member's post count divided by their registration date shows how much work they're not doing.
Or it could show that they are not "wasting time" doing a number of other things: watching TV, reading magazines, playing video games, sleeping in, surfing the internet, hanging out in a bar, etc...
There are lots of other things photographers do when they're not working. Does that mean they are wasting time? Or maybe just engaging in recreation? We can't work all the time, after all.
So another "pro" tip: Engaging in discussions on internet forums and being a good photographer are not mutually exclusive
artd wrote:
Or it could show that they are not "wasting time" doing a number of other things: watching TV, reading magazines, playing video games, sleeping in, surfing the internet, hanging out in a bar, etc...
There are lots of other things photographers do when they're not working. Does that mean they are wasting time? Or maybe just engaging in recreation? We can't work all the time, after all.
So another "pro" tip: Engaging in discussions on internet forums and being a good photographer are not mutually exclusive
+100
Hello Kolor-Pikker: everybody does, what (s)he wants to, believes (s)he has to or what (s)he can do.
For sure nobody else is able to decide what time of anybody elses life is/might be wasted by her or him. You yourself just decided, that your post/reading to and in this thread was worth the time you spent. You could give the same freedom to others too, like you took for yourself. There is no wasted time, imo.
artd wrote:
Or it could show that they are not "wasting time" doing a number of other things: watching TV, reading magazines, playing video games, sleeping in, surfing the internet, hanging out in a bar, etc...
I thought lurking on this forum was surfing the internet. I look at the political gossip, I look at the financial gossip, and then I look at the camera gossip. Surfing the internet, right?
Since the same subject, i re-post what dswiger said in other thread...
"Blah, blah, blah.
The internet provides the background noise.
I doubt that the quality of Nikon is measurably different than Canon.
I wouldn't use the "tweeting" that goes on in the forums as a legit stats basis for anything.
If you look in a Nikon forum, you hear complaints about Nikon.
If you look in a Canon forum..... You get the idea.
What a problem to have, too many mega pixels & too much dynamic range
.
If I could afford a D800, I would get one just for the experience.
But my images aren't hurting for mega-pixels so its just as well.
There are measurable differences. However, they rarely make a difference.
Further, they are discoverable or researchable because testing tools and software are available and they have all been tested and discovered and discussed and argued and rehashed and raged over. All to an exhausting and nauseating degree. All such online discussions searchable.
But, they rarely matter to practical photography and though they might matter a little more to extreme photography or fine photography, they aren't often crucial there either.
Yes, it is possible that one camera might record some fine detail another might not or focus when another might not or might be slow. But photographers who are honest will admit that they rarely if ever need that photo (of say a bird in flight), however much they might want it.
If you really really want a particular performance point and can afford it, go for it. But don't kid yourself by exaggerating the importance of it.
We can all get jealous of the brag threads where people parade their tens of thousands of dollars of gear or their rare hard-to-find and harder-to-pry-loose lens. What we do with that jealousy is a different story. Most of us smile and let go of it in an instant and move on.
Regardless of how poorly our equipment measures up to our ideal or dream equipment goals, there is no shortage of opportunities to make photographs with what we have.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
I thought lurking on this forum was surfing the internet. I look at the political gossip, I look at the financial gossip, and then I look at the camera gossip. Surfing the internet, right?
Heh. I'd say "lurking" and "posting" are different things
Hello Kolor-Pikker: everybody does, what (s)he wants to, believes (s)he has to or what (s)he can do.
For sure nobody else is able to decide what time of anybody elses life is/might be wasted by her or him. You yourself just decided, that your post/reading to and in this thread was worth the time you spent. You could give the same freedom to others too, like you took for yourself. There is no wasted time, imo.
There are so many internetographers who would rather talk about cameras than use them, the problem isn't about time distribution, it's about the fact that some people are content with just spending the whole day on forums.
And I'm not wasting time by popping on a forum I haven't been on for half a year, clicking on the first thread I see and writing something out for a total of 2 minutes spent.
Well I'm sitting here posting while my son sits on my lap watching Little Red Tractor - I guess I could abandon him and do night photography but then I'd be a really selfish, crap dad.
Kolor-Pikker wrote:
There are so many internetographers who would rather talk about cameras than use them, the problem isn't about time distribution, it's about the fact that some people are content with just spending the whole day on forums.
And I'm not wasting time by popping on a forum I haven't been on for half a year, clicking on the first thread I see and writing something out for a total of 2 minutes spent.
I guess you missunderstood me. I mentioned, there is no wasted time.
If you come to FM first time after half a year, clicking on the first thread you see and writing something for a total time of two minutes without adding any content to the thread except your opinion, that people who spend their time in reading and posting "waste time" I am sure it was important for you to do so. Let others do the same, if it is important to them. Many put some content to a thread when they post. You did not.
Kolor-Pikker wrote:
There are so many internetographers who would rather talk about cameras than use them, the problem isn't about time distribution, it's about the fact that some people are content with just spending the whole day on forums.
And I'm not wasting time by popping on a forum I haven't been on for half a year, clicking on the first thread I see and writing something out for a total of 2 minutes spent.
I'm all for people posting more photos in these threads instead of just verbiage. Make a point, and show examples. I like making photos and also looking at the result others get.
Kolor-Pikker wrote:
There are so many internetographers who would rather talk about cameras than use them,
There are also many photographers who can both talk about cameras and use them.
