gdanmitchell wrote:
"Wait. 10,000 images divided by an 8 hour day is 1250 per hour, about 21 per minute, or 1 every 3 seconds. And with "very high quality standards." ;-)"
mtbakerskier wrote:
Yep. When you have your light 100% dialed, the athlete or model is 100% and your set designer has everything peeped 100%, all you have to do is check focus / composure and shoot. Doesn't even take 6 seconds then. Especially when you have an amazing Art Director that knows exactly what they want.
Now on the other hand, when I am dragging 2+ studio packs into the backcountry to shoot skiing, I am perfectly content with just 1 quality shot a day. Once again, a different beast. The point is its not that difficult to do a lot of high-quality volume in certain disciplines....Show more →
If your model is free posing you can rip through two shots a second easily, but then again the photographer isn't contributing a great deal. That makes up for the downtime during changeovers etc. and if you're alternating models as they get changed then I guess it's doable. It's still an awful lot of shots to go through in a day, not sure I'd want to be looking through the viewfinder that long!
In a studio environment battery life shouldn't be a big deal as you can cycle through packs or shoot with a DC connection. I certainly wouldn't recommend a mirrorless camera to anyone doing 10,000+ shots outdoors at a sporting event. DSLRs will still be around for a long time to come to cover that need.
I've found with mirrorless I can do a day of casual photography on a single battery, with one spare if needed, I certainly don't need to carry twenty batteries. YMMV.
Focus Locus wrote:
And as for "quality standards", those shots have to meet several quality standards (exposure, focus, subject isolation, situational decorum, peak action, eyes visible, non embarrassing facial expression, etc), because they are sold straight out of camera, within minutes of having been shot. No post adjustments whatsoever.
And with those requirements, a good EVF is a godsend... because they don't have time to chimp.
Matt Grum wrote:
DSLRs will still be around for a long time to come to cover that need.
Yes, DSLR's will be around for a while, but it won't be long before they become such a small niche market, any new models that still exist will be so expensive that few will be able to afford them.
JesseShotland wrote:
So, I've been off the forum for a bit. Have I missed anything new about this topic? Don't want to go back and read 24 pages.
I live in NYC so this excites me extra.
Mostly complaints and petty squabbles along with a few people trying to crush others' dreams for sport. Basically the usual for the canon forum since the advent of the d800.
molson wrote:
Yes, DSLR's will be around for a while, but it won't be long before they become such a small niche market, any new models that still exist will be so expensive that few will be able to afford them.
kezeka wrote:
Mostly complaints and petty squabbles along with a few people trying to crush others' dreams for sport. Basically the usual for the canon forum since the advent of the d800.
Good thing I don't let other peoples' bitching affect my dreams. I read Nikon & Sony user comments for amusement, not guidance.
KKFung wrote:
Wow, the G7x have better PQ then 5D3 and 1Dx at base iso
It might have better DR, but not image quality. Most of the reviews I've seen say the Sony RX100(x) surpasses it in sharpness and detail. Might as well get the whole package from the same people who make the sensor... Sony.
Oh, and I still wouldn't pick an RX100III over a 5D3 and good lens for landscape work intended for large print.
justruss wrote:
It might have better DR, but not image quality. Most of the reviews I've seen say the Sony RX100(x) surpasses it in sharpness and detail. Might as well get the whole package from the same people who make the sensor... Sony.
Oh, and I still wouldn't pick an RX100III over a 5D3 and good lens for landscape work intended for large print.
I learnt in the forum that better DR always have better PQ
KKFung wrote:
I learnt in the forum that better DR always have better PQ
I think you are confusing "Higher DR is always helping image quality" with "Image quality is always better with higher DR". Nobody ever said the latter on this forum. But if it feels good to bastardize the benefits of high DR, go on
bernardl wrote:
Seriously, that image right there must be incredibly embarassing for the head of sensor design at Canon.
The key going forward for the low ISO DR people is to get more Canon board of directors into landscape photography. Then you have a better shot at controlling the development direction of sensors.
Archive 2014 · OMG - 1DsX in NYC...
