alundeb wrote:
Very nice images, Ian!
What's that weird shiny area on the bird's back in #1?
To find something to complain about (I guess I have to ), I don't care very much for the noise in the otherwise smooth OOF areas and especially the in-foucus water.
yeah i must admit they look slightly noisier in the export than they do in my LR cat.
I didn't run any NR oiver them just the LR defaults.
dont know about the shiny area . do you mean the blown highlights ? maybe I culd run a bit of recovery over them.
Dont have tha 1D any more. I swapped it for a near brand new 40D. I may get a 1D2 at some point although the shutter life does worry me a little bit. see lots of reports of blown shutters and over here that looks to be a £300 repair , which is near half the cost of a used 1d2 and gets close to the cost of a new 7D (well add another £200)
abqnmusa wrote:
It is the photographer that makes a quality image through good composition, exposure, and image processing not the hardware used I have beautiful images from the 10D -- The 10D can still repeat those same beautiful images same goes for the 1D
This is all well and true ... to a point. Just as the make and type of film strongly influenced the outcome of even the most professional and celebrated photographers' work, so does the body of a DSLR influence outcomes.
The 10D, which I owned, is a nice camera. But once you've shot with a 5D Mk 1 or Mk II, it's almost impossible to go back to the 10D — or even the 20D, 30D, 40D or 50D — and be comfortable with the results. The differences between these cameras are not at all subtle. Indeed, they are quite dramatic. Even the Canon xsi trumps the 10D when it comes to image quality.
Diminishing the value and importance of the body steers newcomers astray. It leads them to believe that a 10D or NIkon D60 "will be just fine," and that they should invest in good glass before they spend big bucks on a camera body (how many times have we heard THAT one before!). It's simply not true, and it's not valid advice. A 7D, 5D II, 1D IV, 1D III, etc., will far, far, far outperform the 1D Classic or anything else from that era.
Yes, in the right hands, a 1D will produce some really good IQ. Imagine those same hands working with a 1D IV. Don't you think the outcome will be better images?
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
dont know about the shiny area . do you mean the blown highlights ? maybe I culd run a bit of recovery over them.
Included the brownish area to the right and and the blueish above the highlights, it doesn't look like feathers, even not like wet feathers. It looks almost like some of the water surface is cloned in.
yeah I see what to mean. The brownish area is the funny sticky up part of his feathers ( he may well have had a damaged part I can't remember. The other bit well nothing was cloned or anything else so I can only assume it's an opticle illusion or such. May be a bit more dog would have yeilded a better result. I'm used to a full crop so maybe I didn't need 2.8 on the larger form of the 1D
Jun 11, 2010 at 02:27 PM
Roger Whitehead Offline • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
I just had a trawl back thru my LR dbase for the few 1D files that are on there and in the right conditions it had very acceptable IQ.
That is one of the most pleasantly coloured Mandarin images I've seen in a while.
People tend to overprocess their images to the point of the bird resembling a decoy.
+1 Back when Pentax made their cute little 110 SLR, you could give that to a great photographer... and you would still be stuck with a 110 instamatic image...
...and when you loaded the A110 with Kodachrome you could probably come close to the 1D in IQ... hahahaha...
>>This is all well and true ... to a point. Just as the make and type of film strongly influenced the outcome of even the most professional and celebrated photographers' work, so does the body of a DSLR influence outcomes.
My better half grew up there, and all of her family are still out there, so I spend a lot of time out there. That and there aren't too many other surf spots between there and Alberta!
If I was mainly shooting daylight sport photography and my budget was low, the 1D was probably the highest cam on my list. Then again, for "general" shooting I'd much prefer the 40D for the same budget.
), I don't care very much for the noise in the otherwise smooth OOF areas and especially the in-foucus water.
