Kittyk wrote:
next in the news, 7k camera makes pictures which in print looks almost as good as 2k camera. It is more expensive, but more limited!
Care to share/describe the shots you printed (or saw printed) and why they looked inferior to a 2k camera?
I\'m happy to compare my shots taken with the 7k inferior camera to anyones from their dslr. Name the subject or genre and we\'ll make a real pissing contest of it. We can even pixel peep high ISO shots - I\'ve applied my NR workflow to plenty of high ISO M9 shots and I\'m pretty certain I can get more detail and a cleaner image out of it than my 5D-II up to ISO1600. In prints the high ISO advantage for many dslr\'s decreases further.
The big thing about high ISO for me personally, is I don\'t have any examples or what I would consider technically \"good\" pictures at anything higher than ISO 1600 on my 5D/5D-II and I used to be a club/band shooter. 1/180s ISO1600 and f/1.4-f/2.0 is just fine for what I used to shoot, and I shot in even darker environments with the 50/1.1 nokton on my M6 and ISO400 film... although people got a bit blurrier (not still objects) because of the 1/30s-1/50s shutterspeed.
Although, if you think it\'ll get you better pictures I saw a rumour of the nikon D4 having ISO102400. The only person who\'s style warrants higher and higher clean (with little regard to colour) ISO shots is Richard. I have shot at ISO6400 for one shoot but that was a real exception and I didn\'t like the completely flat muted colours that I got, say what you want but you can\'t put back natural colour tone in post, only saturation.
Spyro, I love handling the camera and don\'t mind people admiring it among friends but I actually dislike any attention in public, but I assume you were mostly inferring the former.
Kittyk wrote:but i do not see it any newsworthy that fullframe 18Mp modern sensor makes good enough pictures.
Oh I totally agree, imagine what shakespeare could have written with these modern pens that can write on glass and upside down!
Kittyk wrote:
next in the news, 7k camera makes pictures which in print looks almost as good as 2k camera. It is more expensive, but more limited!
Care to share/describe the shots you printed (or saw printed) and why they looked inferior to a 2k camera?
I\'m happy to compare my shots taken with the 7k inferior camera to anyones from their dslr. Name the subject or genre and we\'ll make a real pissing contest of it. We can even pixel peep high ISO shots - I\'ve applied my NR workflow to plenty of high ISO M9 shots and I\'m pretty certain I can get more detail and a cleaner image out of it than my 5D-II up to ISO1600. In prints the high ISO advantage for many dslr\'s decreases further.
The big thing about high ISO for me personally, is I don\'t have any examples or what I would consider technically \"good\" pictures at anything higher than ISO 1600 on my 5D/5D-II and I used to be a club/band shooter. 1/180s ISO1600 and f/1.4-f/2.0 is just fine for what I used to shoot, and I shot in even darker environments with the 50/1.1 nokton on my M6 and ISO400 film... although people got a bit blurrier (not still objects) because of the 1/30s-1/50s shutterspeed.
Although, if you think it\'ll get you better pictures I saw a rumour of the nikon D4 having ISO102400. The only person who\'s style warrants higher and higher clean (with little regard to colour) ISO shots is Richard. I have shot at ISO6400 for one shoot but that was a real exception and I didn\'t like the completely flat muted colours that I got, say what you want but you can\'t put back natural colour tone in post, only saturation.
Spyro, I love handling the camera and don\'t mind people admiring it among friends but I actually dislike any attention in public, but I assume you were mostly inferring the former.
Nov 19, 2009 at 07:24 AM
Previous versions of thrice's message #7794069 « Rockwell M9 samples - impressions from prints »
