retrofocus wrote:
So the point simply is not that great photos can be taken by all kind of gear - the question is which camera system (and this was the OP's question!) is actually advantageous in a given aspect - and regarding IQ and dynamic range, this is simply the D800(E).
I think by post 4 or 5 the OP got the picture. The other 12+ pages is just fun banter.
I'm perfectly happy that Canon focuses on high ISO. I've gone from a 10D to a 1D2 to a 1D4 to a 1DX. I see a steady progression of improved sensors.
retrofocus wrote:
So this is now the latest excuse for Canon's lack of new sensor technology - what kind of gear other well known photographers use and that they get good photos also with current Canon FF cameras. This is the most ridiculous defense so far. The same way I could argue that I make still great photos with my MkII camera and that it doesn't get better technically with a more advanced sensor which would be simply wrong. This reminds me on the reoccurring discussions "we don't need more MP" etc.
The OP asked about these cameras for product, street and landscape photography. The reply about what kind of gear well known photographers use is certainly relevant to his question, moreso than some people's complaints about not having the latest sensor fabrication technology. The current gear works and it works at a high level, and that should be relevant to the OP or someone else in the same position. The OP didn't ask for a critique focused on nanometers of a fabrication process, or dynamic range at low ISO, or more megapixels. While those details matter on some level, let's not pretend that all photographers should be similarly obsessed with those details or that those are the only details that matter.
The point about well known photographers is that those details obviously don't matter to them as much as they do to some critics of Canon's sensors. They wouldn't use Canon if that were the case. Is it ridiculous to suggest that gear that works well for well known photographers under diverse & demanding conditions might also work for the OP? I don't think so. I think it's more ridiculous to suggest that sensor critics' concerns about nanometers in sensor fabrication should determine the camera choice of someone interested in photographing product, street and landscape. Some people just want to make pictures and will look at the value of the whole system; they don't need bragging rights to "leading the field" in pushing shadows or some other narrow technical test.
gome1122 wrote:
The D800E has an unbeatable sensor, but soon that may not be the case with some expected releases in February 2014. But despite the D800E having a better sensor, I prefer the 5D III because of the lenses that come with it.
yes, this is the most common arguments made by Canon users today
what make you think Canon lenses are so extraordinary?
heard about Nikon, Zeiss, Leitz and even whats going on at Sigma ?
ggreene wrote:
I think by post 4 or 5 the OP got the picture. The other 12+ pages is just fun banter.
I'm perfectly happy that Canon focuses on high ISO. I've gone from a 10D to a 1D2 to a 1D4 to a 1DX. I see a steady progression of improved sensors.
well you should be, Canon are good as others at high iso but have no sensor who can compete with the other big one's and on-sensor AD conversions.
I prefer a sensor who have both = good high iso and low iso properties and also high resolution
zlatko wrote:
Some people just want to make pictures and will look at the value of the whole system; they don't need bragging rights to "leading the field" in pushing shadows or some other narrow technical test.
Indeed. There are two camps - with some crossover - that of the luddite-emo photographers, and that of the technician-nerd photographers.
It really is a yin and yang/male or female argument. Most female photography students really couldn't give a rat's arse about this whole debate and couldn't describe how a sensor works if Tom Hardy offered them a date. Whereas many of the male students will be found discussing gear incessantly, boring those few who remain within earshot.
Mikael Risedal wrote:
yes, this is the most common arguments made by Canon users today
what make you think Canon lenses are so extraordinary?
heard about Nikon, Zeiss, Leitz and even whats going on at Sigma ?
How are the Zeiss TS lenses or 200-400 w/1.4?? How are the Zeiss AF lenses these days??
Canon has as good or better a selection of lenses of very high quality. Other lenses are better in specific cases, but Canon isn't far behind and fills all the gaps in the other lenses manufacturers.
Mikael Risedal wrote:
well you should be, Canon are good as others at high iso but have no sensor who can compete with the other big one's and on-sensor AD conversions.
I prefer a sensor who have both = good high iso and low iso properties and also high resolution
Canon has no sensor like that at all
Then use Nikon or Sony gear. Since when is Canon the only game in town? There are a myriad of other companies producing quality gear and as you are so fond of pointing out you have access to a lot of it. Why continually grumble about something you have no control over. Canon will release a new sensor when they are ready. If your work requires the Exmor sensor then use one in the mean time.
Paul Mo wrote:
Indeed. There are two camps - with some crossover - that of the luddite-emo photographers, and that of the technician-nerd photographers.
It really is a yin and yang/male or female argument. Most female photography students really couldn't give a rat's arse about this whole debate and couldn't describe how a sensor works if Tom Hardy offered them a date. Whereas many of the male students will be found discussing gear incessantly, boring those few who remain within earshot.
Not sure what the term "luddite-emo" means, but I assume it means the opposite to "technician-nerd". Well, yes, I have a very technical and scientific background, and I worked in the area of thin film glass coating (for photovoltaic applications) myself. So yes, I do understand technical terminology, and I love reading about it. But I also do photography since three decades now, and I love the creative outlet with this. You are right that many who buy a simple DSLR likely don't care too much about the specifics of Exmor or Canon sensors. But people who go for a FF camera normally do - maybe they don't dive into all the tiny sensor-specific details, but they understand very well which one out-resolves the other and which one has a better DR. Doesn't take much to understand this at least. People most often stick to one or the other camera system because of made investment in glass. Up to now sometimes Canon was leading, then (like now) in an area Nikon (this time with Sony technology). Let's see what the next generation of Canon FF sensors will bring - then we are talking!
Paul Mo wrote:
Indeed. There are two camps - with some crossover - that of the luddite-emo photographers, and that of the technician-nerd photographers.
I think you over-generalize, if you are suggesting that photographers fit into one or the other category. It might be more valid to suggest - though even this is open to a lot of debate - that the two types you mentioned (disparaged?) represent to possible modes of disfunction in photography.
Quite a few photographers - and all of the good ones that I know - could not accurately be categorized in either of those ways.
Paul Mo wrote:
Indeed. There are two camps - with some crossover - that of the luddite-emo photographers, and that of the technician-nerd photographers.
It really is a yin and yang/male or female argument. Most female photography students really couldn't give a rat's arse about this whole debate and couldn't describe how a sensor works if Tom Hardy offered them a date. Whereas many of the male students will be found discussing gear incessantly, boring those few who remain within earshot.
There is some truth to that. It's a generalization, and no doubt there are counter-examples and crossovers, but I think the "two camps" idea has some truth. I enjoy the technical parts of photography itself — using it to craft a photo — but not the technical parts of sensor fabrication. That's important stuff, but it's engineering not photography. I'm not worrying about something like "on-sensor AD conversions". I'm happy to let manufacturers worry about such things. There are too many other things that matter for a photograph. If and when Canon improves their sensor technology, I'll be thrilled for whatever benefits it brings. In the meantime, I'm pleased with what it already does.
I have an event shot with the 5D3 and D800, and the D800 photos are fine but don't stand out in any way. Bigger files, yes, but nothing that actually makes the pictures better. When evaluating the photos, the photographer's decisions (technical and artistic) are much more important than what happened at the sensor factory.
zlatko wrote:
I have an event shot with the 5D3 and D800, and the D800 photos are fine but don't stand out in any way. Bigger files, yes, but nothing that actually makes the pictures better.
I accept your opinion, and I believe what you observed in your statement above. I can only say that I saw quite some differences comparing photos of each camera, but I didn't compare event photography shots (more so landscape and architecture shots).
retrofocus wrote:
I accept your opinion, and I believe what you observed in your statement above. I can only say that I saw quite some differences comparing photos of each camera, but I didn't compare event photography shots (more so landscape and architecture shots).
Yeh, I wouldn't purchase a D800 to shoot events. It's a camera made for times when you want to print large and require huge amounts of dynamic range, neither is traditionally needed for event photography. Now landscape is a totally different beast and the time I spent with a rented D800e, I was amazed at it's dynamic range abilities and the fine details in the prints obtained.
chez wrote:
Yeh, I wouldn't purchase a D800 to shoot events. It's a camera made for times when you want to print large and require huge amounts of dynamic range, neither is traditionally needed for event photography. Now landscape is a totally different beast and the time I spent with a rented D800e, I was amazed at it's dynamic range abilities and the fine details in the prints obtained.
Yes, but I think the D800(E) can also manage event shooting quite well even you likely won't need the higher resolution for this kind of photography. I saw in summer this year a professional photographer with his team taking model shots at Columbus Circle in NY City with a D800E. I didn't approach him, but I was wondering if the high resolution was advantageous here. Regarding landscapes I made the same experience as you did even I didn't print the photos as large.
Paul Mo wrote:
No disparagement and plenty of generalisation - are generalisations not generally true?
I know plenty of photogs can't be easily pigeonholed -hence the use of the word crossover.
Some generalizations have some truth. For example, "Photography usually makes use of lenses" or "light is usually required for making photographs" are generalizations that are true in most cases.
But, of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that if some generalizations are true that we can trust that generalizations are true, does it?
When I think of the photographers I know, none of them fits into the two distinct categories that you proposed, the luddite-emo or technician-nerd. They are all competent (and more) with technical issues involved in making and printing photographs, but they produce beautiful, compelling, emotional photographs. I know virtually no photographers (as differentiated from photography forum participants, a group that overlaps but is not identical with a group known as "photographer") who fit either of the generalizations.
I think maybe you are trying to come up with a way to label to seeming polar opposites in photography forum discussions, perhaps?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Some generalizations have some truth. For example, "Photography usually makes use of lenses" or "light is usually required for making photographs" are generalizations that are true in most cases.
But, of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that if some generalizations are true that we can trust that generalizations are true, does it?
When I think of the photographers I know, none of them fits into the two distinct categories that you proposed, the luddite-emo or technician-nerd. They are all competent (and more) with technical issues involved in making and printing photographs, but they produce beautiful, compelling, emotional photographs. I know virtually no photographers (as differentiated from photography forum participants, a group that overlaps but is not identical with a group known as "photographer") who fit either of the generalizations.
I think maybe you are trying to come up with a way to label to seeming polar opposites in photography forum discussions, perhaps?
I got the sense that Paul was using those terms to identify groups at the opposite ends of the spectrum of photographers, and that his term "crossovers" represented those who fit somewhere in between the two. Perhaps simplistic, but it was sufficient to understand his point.
