jbear2000 wrote:
technolust? what is that? I figure you dark side shooters would be too busy figuring out which pixels are working and how to make it focus in the dark...
Just kidding - those airplane shots are great!
With half the pixels and no light at all, the AF still works better than...
Technolust is a disease that I suffer from all the time. It is not limited to cameras either. But Nikon's recent announcement sure has the boards buzzing and my trigger finger itching.
There is now rumor (Thom Hogan) of another product in the pipeline - same body, 24mp, pricepoint $4-5k. That one does not interest me personally, but will cause a stir - 1/2 the price of a 1Ds!
It's a good time to be on the dark side. I am sure the end of this year and next year will bring a bunch of announcements from the white lens crew. Then y'all can get some technolust.
Jon Uhler wrote:
Well in his case he would have the MKIIn and Canon 20D? 30D? So right off the bat you have 1.3 crop and 1.6 crop. Then if you slap a 16-35 on one camera and a 24-70 (zoomed in to 70) you have different shots of the same action. You could also have them set up with different zooms to catch different parts of the same action. Hence....no switching out of lens on one tripod mounted camera.
That is how I see it any way....
Yeah - that makes the most sense... but i get too many shots to edit as it is... i can't imagine doubling the pleasure! Its not like fireworks is a high paying gig or anything.
Actually, I've been reading the Nikon boards as well and those are the complaints I keep seeing from Nikon shooters.
For all tense and purposes - while the Mark III has had its problems in the past - they have remedied them with the new bodies as far as I can tell. So autofocus isn't a valid complaint anymore. And the Mark III has always been better in the dark even with the focus issues.
Why not? Keeping an open mind is always a good thing isn't it? If there were sufficient reason to switch - i'd do it in a heartbeat. Even with the Mark III issues of the past - there still isn't sufficient reason - for me. Anyone else can justify anything they want and I wish them well. This isnt a football game. We all win when the two big titans battle out their technology.
Besides - if the shooter is enough of an artist - it doesn't even matter if the camera does anything at all...
Yeah...I am wanting a new body to play with as well...a MKIII or a 5D....
I am seriously thought about chucking it all and going Nikon. Love the files from the D300 and the D700 looks killer.....just wish the dark side had some nice primes....
Jon, you are welcome to shoot with my Mark III some time when we are all shooting together. Use your lenses and compare to what you've been getting with your other bodies. That should tell you whether you want to stay with Canon or switch.
The latest Nikon stuff looks way cool to me - but I wouldn't ever jump on a new system based on new technologies. The Mark III taught me that lesson. I should have waited at least a year before i bought it - just to let the bugs shake out. Nikon is no different in that regard.
Jim wants me to shoot one of his 1Ds Mark IIIs in Oshkosh along with the new 800 - says i won't go back to the Mark III after enjoying the IQ of all those pixels. We'll see.
JB - Thanks for the offer. I might have to take you up on that. It is the lens that keep me in the Canon camp right now. Other than tlong and her lovely 200 F2...I just don't see the Nikon primes keeping up with Canon...and it blows my mind to tell you the truth. Like they say, invest in glass...bodies come and go.
I think you are going to love that IDSMKIII....I can't imagine having all those pixels...
It was meant to be funny JonB knows I'm kidding - I hope. I'd love to try a big body sometime, but I can't afford to buy it so you guys better not hand one to me. You want the real Canon/Nikon test? Tracey and I are shooting together next week and we can see who gets better pictures. Just kidding, she's a much better representative of Nikon than I am of Canon.
I'm renting a 24mm f/1.4 for the weekend - can't wait to get my hands on that lens. I think it'll make me lust after a wide angle prime. I want ridiculous depth of field on wide shots.
The older 200 1.8 has been a considered a keeper for years and the new 200 2 isn't supposed to be a slouch either. i'd be quite happy with either one! I'm like Colin though - no money to buy excess gear...
Sending the 24-70 and the 300 in for cleaning and calibration in preparation for Osh. 300 bucks just to clean em up! Ain't life grand?
jbear2000 wrote:
Marc, are you shooting stereo vision shots with that rig? Help me understand what you are doing - what you are trying to achieve. I'm at a total loss. (familiar territory, i know... "what does this button do") How does shooting two cameras pointed in the same direction get different results unless you have one set up to shoot in a different color space or pre set distance.
Just because I took a photo of both cameras level doesn't mean that is how the mount is setup in practice. http://www.lowbyte.com/pix/poke.gif
Sometimes the cameras are setup for completely different exposure profiles, at an event where there is a large "ground-level" show I might have one camera landscape recording the sparklers, roman candles, band performance, crowd reaction, etc. The other is pointed at the sky for the fireworks themselves.
With a Stone Mountain shoot I have one setup with a fireworks exposure and portrait with wide angle, one landscape with a telephoto setup to record the laser painting on the wall. The advantage is not having to drag around two tripods from the car to the shoot.
Everyone is different, I like to tinker and I have found this $14 spent useful for my needs- I never said it was something everyone should have.
But i like carrying around stuff i never get out of the bag... I can't tell you how many hikes I've been on where the tripod was just there to keep my feet on the ground.
Jon Uhler wrote:
Playing around with the 135L in the backyard....
Jon, I think you have some front focus going on with those dog shots.
The primes will come. On the wide side, the 14-24 beats all Nikon/Canon primes in that range. The 85 1.4 is excellent but outdated. From 200 and up it's a wash.
Hi guys...wow! You guys can cover a lot of ground in a day
Yes, Craig...I am drooling! Prior to the announcement, I had decided that I DEFINITELY did not need a D700...now, of course, I am trying to figure out how to get it done It is definitely an illness!
The Cafe is awesome! I never knew about it before.
tlong wrote:
I am trying to figure out how to get it done It is definitely an illness!
The Cafe is awesome! I never knew about it before.
I'm sure you will find a way. You would work wonders with one.
The Cafe is my primary hangout. Unlike Nikonians.org, they let discussions run their course unless they get really out of hand. I have been 'chastised' once or twice, mostly in the software forum, because Nikon have no clue at all when it comes to software and I have been quite vocal about that - y'all know me, so that should come as no surprise
The D700 absolutely requires the 14-24. I intended to get a 14-24 anyway, so I'll get that and then maybe wait until the end of the year before looking seriously at a D700.
So that's why it seems you're always spoiling for a fight - you're a chastised, instigator!
Welcome to the club - though even here i one up you - i've been thrown off a few forums... i gots practice!!!
The ebb and flow of what each company has to offer is a constant. What doesn't make sense is switching platforms in mid stream. If you figure what money is spent and lost by flip flopping - and it still comes down to a wash, i guess it just doesn't make sense to me to wring yourself through the process. Ask yourself if you are selling your images, are you going to make that money back - not just make that money - but enough profit to cover your losses!
If you're flip flopping on an expensive hobby that you aren't making a cent... its a free country - but man - i don't know enough independently wealthy people who can do that and also fund their retirement. Don't get caught up in the hype - both platforms will provide stunning results and the tiny little difference this week is hardly worth arguing or fighting over which pixel shines the brightest. People are more important than pixels!
But funny.
JonB knows I'm kidding - I hope. I'd love to try a big body sometime, but I can't afford to buy it so you guys better not hand one to me. You want the real Canon/Nikon test? Tracey and I are shooting together next week and we can see who gets better pictures. 
Just kidding, she's a much better representative of Nikon than I am of Canon.