Don Olson wrote:
I think you are mistaken, the last time I looked at KR it was a D200 and 18-200. No body would ever need anything other than that combo.
Aaron Macomber wrote:
Why does he bother? I thought all he needed was a D300 and an 18-200mm zoom.
I think he only needs D40 + 18-55. According to him, D40 is the best camera, and 18-55 is on his top 10 lens list. With his "skills", he doesn't need anything more
camerapapi wrote: Dnenciu: True, a professional camera does not have to be necessarily better in IQ than an amateur one. I mentioned in my post that I liked better the images from the 5D than those of the D3 or D700. I could be wrong but that is my perception. I am sorry I cannot discuss quality among Canon cameras since I only use Nikon bodies and lenses. My statement about the 5D comes from looking at pictures not actually using the camera.
"Nobody in his right mind would buy a 8k or even a 3k camera and shoot JPEG." You said that, I did not. Many professional wedding photographers I know shoot strictly JPEG with their D2X and D3. I shoot RAW but I would be lying if I said I can see the difference in prints, assuming sharpening is not done in camera when shooting JPEG.
As I said, I have no experience with Canon products but I know photographers using them and they are happy.
On regard to the D3X that is a camera I have no use for nor the money to buy it. I still use a D1X for macros and landscape photography and a D2H for those rare occasions when I shoot action or wildlife. If I travel, I usually take my D70S and kit lenses to make the load lighter and yes, I believe those cheap kit lenses are capable of very nice images.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
Everybody is free to do what they want with their camera. But buying a d3/d3x and shooting jpeg is not something somebody that cares about image quality would do.
You lose a lot of latitude in PP as well as sharpness.
Is the same as people buying a 3k camera and using it with cheap lenses. (ignoring the exceptions 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8...)
Also I had a 5d and have a d700 and image quality at base iso for me is equal if not a bit in the favor of d700 (more latitude to save shadow highlight detail).
Avi B wrote:
With such huge raw files, why bother shooting in raw? Why not just shoot in JPEG for most things?
I only shoot raw with d2h because the files are small. And on the d2xs coz i'm not used to it yet.
So, how does the file size change/degrade any of the benefits that raw brings? Sure, it takes a little longer to process them, but you shoot JPEG for one set of reasons and raw for another set of reasons and the file size doesn't change either set of reasons. Or does it
chez wrote:
Well if Ken is a to$$er and you read his site...what does that make you?
We don't need to read his site to be aware of the nonsense he writes. It ends up in every forum with his latest outlandish remarks being the titles of topic threads. Sometimes, we verify for ourselves that he really did say something stupid; personally, it never surprises me when it is confirmed.
dnenciu wrote:
Everybody is free to do what they want with their camera. But buying a d3/d3x and shooting jpeg is not something somebody that cares about image quality would do.
You lose a lot of latitude in PP as well as sharpness.
Whilst not disagreeing with your last statement, I think your first statement is a half truth. If you are a working pro sports shooter working to a deadline, the last thing you might want to do is mess about with raw files. Much better to send the JPEG files directly to the news desk or who ever the customer is. There are some good reasons to use JPEG. But, if like me you are an amateur, and have time on your side, or you shoot for quality (landscapes say) then I think we would all agree with your statement.
Spyglass wrote:
I watched the Canon v Nikon war in my photo store for 35 years. I can still remember the day reps from both companies actually busted out in a fist fight in the middle of my local trade show.
Did anyone get a picture of the fight? And what brand was the camera that took the picture?
TonyBeach wrote:
We don't need to read his site to be aware of the nonsense he writes. It ends up in every forum with his latest outlandish remarks being the titles of topic threads. Sometimes, we verify for ourselves that he really did say something stupid; personally, it never surprises me when it is confirmed.
I sigh when I see Ken being quoted on forums, and then check what he is saying. Someone suggested I read his latest article on film. It seems like an exciting read, dynamic, and enthusiastic. But when I focus on the content, I see that it is full of sweeping statements, with no specifics. When he says "If you demand the best quality for serious subjects, and don't mind investing a lot of time to get it, then step all the way up to film." what does he mean? Does he mean a 4"x 5" sheet film camera compared to a D700? Does he know how hard it is to use sheet film? And expensive? And then how about printing it? How many companies do that?
And how about: "You can't go back to a raw file and get more resolution. With film, you don't have to make a resolution decision until you scan it."
So according to Ken, film has infinite resolution. What can one say in response to such twaddle.
LeifG wrote:
I sigh when I see Ken being quoted on forums, and then check what he is saying. Someone suggested I read his latest article on film. It seems like an exciting read, dynamic, and enthusiastic. But when I focus on the content, I see that it is full of sweeping statements, with no specifics. When he says "If you demand the best quality for serious subjects, and don't mind investing a lot of time to get it, then step all the way up to film." what does he mean? Does he mean a 4"x 5" sheet film camera compared to a D700? Does he know how hard it is to use sheet film? And expensive? And then how about printing it? How many companies do that?
And how about: "You can't go back to a raw file and get more resolution. With film, you don't have to make a resolution decision until you scan it."
So according to Ken, film has infinite resolution. What can one say in response to such twaddle. ...Show more →
IIRC he did do a test to find the ultimate resolution of film. (It is finite)
Unfortunately, Ken has good access to cheap film developers local to him. I know I don't so most of what he publishes about film isn't relative for myself as it is way too expensive to consider.
LeifG wrote:
Whilst not disagreeing with your last statement, I think your first statement is a half truth. If you are a working pro sports shooter working to a deadline, the last thing you might want to do is mess about with raw files. Much better to send the JPEG files directly to the news desk or who ever the customer is. There are some good reasons to use JPEG. But, if like me you are an amateur, and have time on your side, or you shoot for quality (landscapes say) then I think we would all agree with your statement.
I totally agree that for the D3 your comment applies but even than I would shoot RAW+Jpeg as the d3 has 2 card slots.
(D3x is not meant as a sports camera. A sports shooter does not necessarily need the resolution and the FPS is much slower as well as the iso that only goes to 6400)
Alright guys, I wouldn't comment about ken unless you read his stuff. The 5dmk11 and the D3X were BOTH shot with the same Nikon lens. He's also an engineer who knows what he is talking about when it comes to digital imaging, so I would trust him more than some amateur shooting RAW because he can't get the exposure right and needs leeway to edit afterward.
benstein wrote:
Alright guys, I wouldn't comment about ken unless you read his stuff. The 5dmk11 and the D3X were BOTH shot with the same Nikon lens. He's also an engineer who knows what he is talking about when it comes to digital imaging, so I would trust him more than some amateur shooting RAW because he can't get the exposure right and needs leeway to edit afterward.
KR minions are everywhere.
You can get more resolution from a RAW file than a JPEG file, and you can get more DR from it too. Every time KR knocks digital compared to film he ignores this because he insists JPEG is good enough for digital -- which is either deliberate handicapping, or because perhaps KR is a fool as well as a clown.
I get the exposure right all the time, and I can tell you that is very different when you are shooting RAW then when you are shooting JPEG. With RAW I can expose about 2/3 of a stop hotter than with JPEG, and that translates directly into less noisy images with more DR.
You can get more resolution from a RAW file than a JPEG file, and you can get more DR from it too. Every time KR knocks digital compared to film he ignores this because he insists JPEG is good enough for digital -- which is either deliberate handicapping, or because perhaps KR is a fool as well as a clown.
I get the exposure right all the time, and I can tell you that is very different when you are shooting RAW then when you are shooting JPEG. With RAW I can expose about 2/3 of a stop hotter than with JPEG, and that translates directly into less noisy images with more DR....Show more →
I'm sick of all the people who bitch and moan about Ken Rockwell... if you want to do a better job I suggest getting off the forums and actually make your own camera review site. It's his opinion and he can use any method he wants of review... if you disagree with his methods then create a site and do reviews yourself rather than rant on him on some message board.
