p.3 #1 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
i say just get out and shoot. both systems kick ass in thier own right.... both have shortcomings but ive said this for years, you'll never be able to tell exactly what lens/body/brand came from any particularly favorite photograph so, reallly..... it doesnt matter.
p.3 #2 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
Beni wrote:
My point is that the need for 21 megapixels nevermind the ability to utilise that kind of resolution is highly specialised but you would never know it from the legions of people who bought one because suddenly they needed 21 megapixels for their flikr albums. Is it any wonder that such people who do not realise just what 21 megapixels means, start learning all to fast just how hard it is to shoot with them in the real world with lenses never designed for the task, an AF system woefully incapable of maximising that resolution, diffraction, camera shake, the stupidity of applying 1/FL to that level of resolution, etc, etc?
You put a serious racing engine into a regular ford without upping the price and you will get a lot of puzzled people looking at their new car wrapped around a tree. I see this as no different. More megapixels does not a good photographer make however much Canon delights in proving that people truly believe the opposite....Show more →
Huh? I currently have three 1Ds Mk IIIs, a 5D II, and two 1Ds MK IIs. That is more FF bodies than 2/3 of the members here. The 1Ds III is the most general pupose DSLR I've ever had. It's not specialized nor requires any special skills. OTOH the 7D is a nightmare of complexity with annoying controls that are easily changed accidentally. It is a specialty body mainly with advantages for tele lens reach.
p.3 #3 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
"Maybe I should just sell off all my gear and get a Holga."
maybe. i was the happiest with photography (and things in general i suppose) when i was a student running around vienna with other bohemians and a taped-up holga. maybe those memories are tinted by the pleasure of carefree youth, but photographically, i had to shoot with a holga, and simply didn't worry about what else was out there or what kind of pixel pitch it had.
now that i can afford the 'good stuff,' i have what in german is called 'die qual der wahl' - somehow life was simpler before i needed an accountant =/
p.3 #4 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
Drifting slightly off topic, but I just want to share my veiw on megapixels on a 36x24 mm sensor and print sizes.
The 36x24 mm sensor size is IMHO ideally suited for high quality landscape imaging at a reasonable cost. The voulme is so much higher than for MF, both regarding camera bodies and lenses, that the prices will always be competitive as long as cameras like the 5DII exist and continue to evolve with higher resolution. Not saying that Digital MF will not always be two steps ahead, but there is still plenty of room for 36x24mm tomorrow to do what digital MF does today. There are EF-mount lenses that will have no problem with resolving for a 50MP sensor, and still give additional resolution on a 100MP sensor.
As for printing, I want to distinguish between what looks satisfactory at "normal" viewing distances, and what can be discovered of extra detail at close-up inspection. With my printer (Epson 3800) and workflow, printing 16x24" at 180 ppi looks satisfactory at normal viewing distances, and all details visible at 100% view on a monitor is also visible in the print. Increasing the resolution from 180ppi up to 360ppi and even 480ppi results in more detailed prints, visible at close-up inspection, but the effect fades, and the print no longer shows all the detail present in 100% view. Above 480ppi there is no longer any added detail in the print. So there is a "transition zone" between 180 and 480 ppi where additional detail can be shown in the print, but not everything present in the file. I want to be able to print at 360ppi, and to fill 16x24" with that, I can use 50 mexapixels.
You may disagree that it is worth making a print that requires close-up inspection to see everything, but I have had experiences seeing perfectly crafted LF contact prints that were just astonishing, and I have also seen piezography and well crafted inkjet prints that promise the same possibilities on digital.
You may also question why I don't want to jump to digital MF, but there are so many other practical benefits about 36x24mm, and the ability to do everything with the same system is very cost efficient.
p.3 #5 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
alundeb wrote:
You may also question why I don't want to jump to digital MF, but there are so many other practical benefits about 36x24mm, and the ability to do everything with the same system is very cost efficient.
Cost efficiency and practicality is where it's at. I do studio work where you can't have enough megapixels, and regularly do stuff to optimize the resolution of my 5D2, because the resulting image may, at some point, be reproduced 1 or maybe even 2 meters wide, and I suspect will be nose-inspected. So it's actually my job to pixel-peep, but to each his own, I guess.
I'd love to have a digital MF camera, but since I also often shoot ISO1600, 1/100th sec, f/1.2 rather often, it's a no-go from the start, not counting indispensable 10x live view, longer battery life, ect. And too expensive to own both.
p.3 #6 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
Beni wrote:
Given that Canon panders to the pixel peepers (how else do you explain the 5D mkII's 21 megapixels?) they kinda ask for it. Most canon shooters I know are far more gear orientated and obsess over the megapixels rather than the Nikonites I know who are older, ex-film shooters and usually crusted pro's who have been shooting professionally for 30 years or more.
As a canon shooter who owns a 1Ds mkIII, 12 megapixels is enough for a 35mm camera, honestly. Unless you regularly print huge or crop hugely (the realm of the pro who used to use medium format) if 12 megapixels isn't enough for you then you are the definition of a pixel peeper. Sorry. Oh and I've gone back to my 5D originals.. ...Show more →
If that were true, The Olympus 4/3 system, whose older 10 megapixel cameras and superior lenses easily matched the image quality of the Nikon 12 megapixel cameras D300 and D700, would be successful... and nobody would be buying Canon's full frame/full resolution cameras.
p.3 #8 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
EB-1 wrote:
Huh? I currently have three 1Ds Mk IIIs, a 5D II, and two 1Ds MK IIs. That is more FF bodies than 2/3 of the members here. The 1Ds III is the most general pupose DSLR I've ever had. It's not specialized nor requires any special skills. OTOH the 7D is a nightmare of complexity with annoying controls that are easily changed accidentally. It is a specialty body mainly with advantages for tele lens reach.
EBH
The 1Ds3 taught me that it's no longer possible to focus recompose, that I need a higher shutter speed and that DOF falloff is brutal. That even a minor focus error is very apparent ditto camera shake. The other responses here just prove my point, suddenly everyone NEEDS medium format resolution in their small cameras. Amazing isn't it. How on earth did we survive for the past century?
p.3 #9 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
Beni wrote:
The 1Ds3 taught me that it's no longer possible to focus recompose, that I need a higher shutter speed and that DOF falloff is brutal. That even a minor focus error is very apparent ditto camera shake. The other responses here just prove my point, suddenly everyone NEEDS medium format resolution in their small cameras. Amazing isn't it. How on earth did we survive for the past century?
In the past century, we used tripods, and more importantly, we actually learned how to use the equipment we had, instead of blaming it for our own shortcomings...
p.3 #10 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
I assume you are agreeing with me. If one needs more resolution (and most don't) then you need to take the whole package with it primarily the added difficulty of use. If people don't accept that shooting 21 megapixels is going to be much harder to maximise the potential quality and like so many on the forum blame the users for somehow not being able to apply 35mm camera techniques as successfully to that level of resolution then they are living in a dream world. Perhaps the same dream world as the guy who suggested that a previous generation 4/3 sensor can equal the D700's output.
p.3 #11 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
Beni wrote:
I assume you are agreeing with me. If one needs more resolution (and most don't) then you need to take the whole package with it primarily the added difficulty of use. If people don't accept that shooting 21 megapixels is going to be much harder to maximise the potential quality and like so many on the forum blame the users for somehow not being able to apply 35mm camera techniques as successfully to that level of resolution then they are living in a dream world. Perhaps the same dream world as the guy who suggested that a previous generation 4/3 sensor can equal the D700's output....Show more →
Sorry, you're off in fantasy land if you think I agree with your ridiculous assertions.
Come back to the forum when you've climbed down off your high horse and actually used some of the equipment that we're discussing here...
p.3 #12 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
ChrisDM wrote:
.... Who wants a 36" print of a common housecat, shot in bad light under the wrong color balance? Apparently more than I would have imagined
p.3 #15 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
Well, there's nothing wrong with commenting on the shortcomings and/or benefits of camera gear in a camera gear forum. That's largely why the forum is here. It helps readers develop their understanding and improves their chance of learning something or making a sound decision when selecting gear for use or purchase.
If you just want to see pictures taken by someone else, or show your own to someone else, then you go to the picture forums rather than the gear forums - and if you're really lucky you (or they) will find some helpful EXIF data or descriptions of technique so that you can learn something from those pictures, but it's not very common.
Even in a gear forum it is not reasonable to exaggerate complaints or to over-generalize them. Equally, it is not fair or reasonable - with or without an attached smiley - to jump on or ridicule people who have gear problems as if those people had to be the culprit. There's no logical validity in the assertion that just because your sample is ok therefore every other sample is ok.
p.3 #16 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
Alan321 wrote:
Well, there's nothing wrong with commenting on the shortcomings and/or benefits of camera gear in a camera gear forum. That's largely why the forum is here. It helps readers develop their understanding and improves their chance of learning something or making a sound decision when selecting gear for use or purchase.
If you just want to see pictures taken by someone else, or show your own to someone else, then you go to the picture forums rather than the gear forums - and if you're really lucky you (or they) will find some helpful EXIF data or descriptions of technique so that you can learn something from those pictures, but it's not very common.
Even in a gear forum it is not reasonable to exaggerate complaints or to over-generalize them. Equally, it is not fair or reasonable - with or without an attached smiley - to jump on or ridicule people who have gear problems as if those people had to be the culprit. There's no logical validity in the assertion that just because your sample is ok therefore every other sample is ok.
I'm sorry but for a complete beginner, this forum can be more confusing than enlightening. The suggestions that you hear in this place are often based on what you may need in the future instead of what you need right now. Hence why you often hear someone recommending the 24-105L or the 17-40L to crop body owners as a general purpose walkaround lens (just in case you go full frame), when there are more suitable alternative with much better value for money.
Unfortunately, the people with a bad sample are usually the ones whom are the most vocal and they tend to make it sound as if their sample represent the majority.
p.3 #17 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
Thankfully Ansel Adams was a pixel peeper and didn't just "go out and take photographs". I also don't think he'd take too kindly to banding, or to people who tell him it happens because he doesn't know how to expose properly.
Naturally very few digital pixel peepers will ever rise to the creative or technical talent of an Ansel Adams. But a few just might. And all their obsessing over gear and sharpness and maximizing DR will make for some memorable photographs.
p.3 #18 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
AGeoJO wrote:
My question is, is this behavior typical with Canon users only or users of other brands, especially Nikon users, scrutinize their gear to approximately the same level as Canon users do also?
IIRC there was a banding issue with the Nikon D200 that heated up the Nikon boards
Now, Nikon just makes cams that don't produce any banding like the Canon cams... not even after heavy PP. Nikon makes good cameras... and now some tasty fast primes too
p.3 #19 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
snapsy wrote:
Thankfully Ansel Adams was a pixel peeper and didn't just "go out and take photographs". I also don't think he'd take too kindly to banding, or to people who tell him it happens because he doesn't know how to expose properly.
Naturally very few digital pixel peepers will ever rise to the creative or technical talent of an Ansel Adams. But a few just might. And all their obsessing over gear and sharpness and maximizing DR will make for some memorable photographs.
Funny that when I see Ansel Adams' photos, the last thing that comes to my mind is the sharpness or DR.
And what do you mean by "maximising DR" anyway? A RAW image can be pushed +/-2 EV. That's quite a lot of dynamic range.
So it's actually my job to pixel-peep, but to each his own, I guess.
