I read the article and thought it was interesting. Sure it would be nice to have more comments on the image quality, but I also didn’t pay for his review so I will just appreciate what I got for free. I always found MR’s site to be interesting to read and full of useful information. I don't always agree with him and that's ok with me. Personally the only review that really matters to me is the one that I do myself when I actually have the camera in hand. I still liked reading MR’s review and I am sure I will enjoy others as I excitedly await my own 1D mk 2.
Has anyone found a good review of the Canon mount version of the Kodak 14 DCS SLR?
Those on this thread who prize sharpness and large prints (me, too!) should have reasons to be encouraged, but what's been written?
As much as I want to like the MKII, giving up MP's is hard to do...
If all these highe end pro model DSLR's are created equal as far as image quality goes,. then there is no reason for a 1D owner to upgrade to a MkII? The control layout is the same after all.... certainly .5 fps a second is hardly a reason...
Likewise,. if the "image quality of the 1D MkII does not soundly and distictly "trounce" the image quality of the D2H... then we should save $1,500.00 and go for the D2H? Other than the DOUBLE the megapixels.. the specs are similar... ?
I second Andy's rant. From all I've seen the 1D-II should be a 5 or more year keeper for what I do. FWIW, I try to spend at least 8 hours a week during prime time down here in Florida shooting.
Don't feel too bad Andy , I felt the same as you and posted my comments on one of MR notes regarding the Cognative Dissonance issue some seem to have about camera and imaging .
My take on it is this , MR has chosen to do a review His way , many want him to do it Their way . As for me I have long maintained that I regard the "fell" of a camera almost as important as all the images and the other technical mumbo jumbo.
Thanks, John, but I don't feel bad at all. Just scratching my head at why people are so animated about how Michael does his reviews. I suspect I am more sensitive to this issue, because I do print shows from time to time, and 'pixel peeper' type quesitons always are more common than something like 'explain the circumstances on how you were able to capture the shot'. Or something like 'explain why your photographs are similar in 'x' way'.
I am hesitant to draw parallels, but the underlying concept is that many people miss the whole point of what our camera equipment is supposed to do for us. They are just tools, and will be outdated at some point. I understand that we want to maximize our investments in our cameras, but there reaches a point where many cameras can have similar end results, but the difference is often in how the camera performs for us, such as the ergonomics and other subtleties. Let me illustrate my point through a simple conversation that occurs at each and every print show that I do.
viewer: "Wow. I really like this photograph. Amazing colors."
Andy: "Thank you"
viewer: "Is this a digital print, or was the photograph taken with a digital camera?"
Andy: "Yes, it was. Both digitally captured and printed, actually."
viewer: "How many megapixels is your camera?"
Andy: "Well, does it really matter?"
viewer: "I want to buy a digital camera, and my friends are telling me that 'x' product is better because it has 'x' megapixels and an 'x' optical zoom."
I illustrate this conversation because I feel that many people are missing the point. I have a print show that is starting tomorrow night in Houston, and out of 18 framed prints on the wall, probably 5 or 6 of them were taken with my D30. The camera was good enough then and it would be good enough now. I wouldn't be able to print huge prints from it, but that is just *one( deficiency in that camera. It doesn't compromise the entire camera. My point is that people need to step back and understand what their photographic goals are. Do you know what *your* goals are? It is ok to not have one, but for me, I know what my goals are. Now that I know, I need equipment to satisfy those goals. Ok. I have purchased my gear to satisfy those goals, and now I *go out and actually use my camera gear*. Get it?
Maybe I am beating a dead horse, but it is easy to get off track and start nitpicking these cameras to death. Michael's point is that they are all at a certain base level, and the differences between them come down to much more than differences in the image. That's all.
Andy, I think your point is well made. Trying to get beyond the tools that we use to the reason we create is very difficult. I know many different artist in many different fields, and we all face the task of trying to communicate that which is the essence of our creation to others that only see the tools used, not the creation.
Technology has become the "Drug of Choice" for some and I have also fallen under it's spell, other wise I would not be here trying to decipher this Gordenan(sp) Knot of digital imaging. But I think the discussion and the different paths we choose, is, in the long run helpful and can be insightful.
I myself am a potter. There are no secrets, no special reciepes, no short cuts that will make someone a master potter, just hard work and an ethic that what you create must be true to yourself. As someone said "all this and 50 cent wont buy a cup of starbucks." I do enjoy the forum, in all its twist and turns. Where else can you get this diverse group, certainly not in my little town of 200 people. Gotta luv it, ya'll wyndham
People tend to judge on pure numbers and specs since they think they are objective. Subjective measurements of the art are much harder to judge and require much deeper knowledge (other than just seeing the aesthetic value and not knowing why). I for one find it an interesting challenge to create art from a imperfect tool. Untill then I can not really appreciate a truely refined tool.
Thanks, Mark. (My wife and I get into Arusha on July 3, and don't leave for safari until July 8. I know we spoke about this earlier, but if you happen to be around, come on down if you have the time on the weekend.)
My stay here in this forum was short.....you all have an axe to grind with other posters for some reason. I came here on a friend's recommendation only to run into a session of constant bitching. I believe that someone could post "white is white" and it would inspire some controversy and most likely the poster would be verbally assaulted for his uneducated opinion. And you whine about DPReview Removing this one from my favorites and will visit friendlier places.
Hmm. I found the article of minimal usefulness. Still I don't understand why people argue about it so much or compalin about the reviewwer. Perhaps there is some division between those who already own 1D or 1Ds and those who don't. Certainly I was one of those lookong for more comments about image quality. I figure the other differences can be ascertained well enough by reading the specs and white paper. How many people will make purchase decisions based on such a review? I think very few.
I guess I'll have to add my .02
I understand that we all want to have the best tools available, however, I think that when you look at those individuals that truly push the photographic envelope-they often did so with the most basic of tools. i.e. Galen Rowell, very well respected by many didn't shoot using Nikon F5's, and the big glass -- he shot with the piddly little n80, and would often only have a 24mm lens, and a couple ND filters...yet many of his best and most famous images came from these tools.
Take a look through the NG, many of the images have "technical" flaws, some are so grainy I initially cringe, until I actually just look at the image - at which time I am often amazed at the subject/style.
My thoughts are to use what you got, improve yourself - and then your tools, and then improve yourself some more...Remember, photography is the art of seeing - not spending.
Removing this one from my favorites and will visit friendlier places.