Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

R.I.P. Nikon

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
August 25, 2005 10:00:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/

--
Rich




















;-P

More about : nikon

August 26, 2005 2:17:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Slack" <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote in message
news:W6GdnUnXE5Ma9JPeRVn-hA@giganews.com...
> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/
> --
> Rich
>

But the vaporware Konica-Minolta 9D seems so much better than the equally
vaporware, but officially announced, Canon 5D.
August 26, 2005 2:42:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Slack" <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote in message
news:W6GdnUnXE5Ma9JPeRVn-hA@giganews.com...
> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/
Kewl, we can have a monopoly, so Canon could then jack up the price of the
5D to $20K. Competition is good for consumers.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
August 26, 2005 2:42:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Darrell wrote:
> "Slack" <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:W6GdnUnXE5Ma9JPeRVn-hA@giganews.com...
>
>>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/
>
> Kewl, we can have a monopoly, so Canon could then jack up the price of the
> 5D to $20K. Competition is good for consumers.
>
>
>
I see we have a pandemic of reading comprehension problems here.

Here's a tip: my name aint "Rich" And just in case you missed that, I
had a ;-P in there; You still managed to mangle the meaning.

<sigh>
--
Slack
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 5:42:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Slack <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote:

> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/

I don't get why this is supposed to be such a blow to Nikon. The 5D doesn't
even look like it would be that interesting to me if I used Canon cameras.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 5:42:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11gssr855hmive9@corp.supernews.com...
> Slack <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/
>
> I don't get why this is supposed to be such a blow to Nikon. The 5D
> doesn't
> even look like it would be that interesting to me if I used Canon cameras.
>
> --
> Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

I know, a larger sensor, more resolution, brighter, larger viewfinder, spot
meter (where all but the 1 series lacked that), interesting "invisible"
focus points, those all add up to terminal boredom, don't they?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 8:04:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <W6GdnUnXE5Ma9JPeRVn-hA@giganews.com>,
Slack <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote:

> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/
>
> --
> Rich

Still not enough megapixels at the price point to warrant dropping
medium format, until that point in time I'll stick with two cheap D70
bodies for digital work. Thanks for the link.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
August 26, 2005 8:04:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Gregory Blank wrote:

> In article <W6GdnUnXE5Ma9JPeRVn-hA@giganews.com>,
> Slack <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/
>>
>>--
>>Rich
>
>
> Still not enough megapixels at the price point to warrant dropping
> medium format, until that point in time I'll stick with two cheap D70
> bodies for digital work. Thanks for the link.
>


Hey, there aint nothing wrong with a couple D70's :-)


I'm just kinda exited looking forward a few years from now. I think we
will all be happy at what will become the "standard" regardless of
whether it comes from Canon, Nikon, Oly or ?? At least we're heading in
the right direction.
--
Slack
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 8:13:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <APvPe.2647$sw6.821@fed1read05>,
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> I know, a larger sensor, more resolution, brighter, larger viewfinder, spot
> meter (where all but the 1 series lacked that), interesting "invisible"
> focus points, those all add up to terminal boredom, don't they?

Problem is doing pro work, if you do it , you want to own two bodies
which you realistically need. Are you ready to cough up 6-7 grand?

& if you retain a different body you still need lenses for full frame
imaging so there are a few down sides.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 8:15:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> I know, a larger sensor, more resolution, brighter, larger viewfinder, spot
> meter (where all but the 1 series lacked that), interesting "invisible"
> focus points, those all add up to terminal boredom, don't they?

Yeah, pretty much. I guess if you're looking for a step up from a 20D,
but you don't want to go to the 1 series for some reason, it would be an
interesting option, but I don't see anything special here apart from the
physical sensor size, and if Canon's example super-wide shot is any
indication, that's actually a negative point.

Apart from that, it's just a mid-spec body with an oversized sensor.
Nothing that'll get me better pictures. The larger viewfinder is a big
plus, of course, and if you're shooting with non-pro Canon stuff the
spot meter would be welcome, but still. If I was going to drop the
cash, I'd still look at the 1 series if I used Canon.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 9:04:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Another insecure Canonista.


"Slack" <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote in message
news:W6GdnUnXE5Ma9JPeRVn-hA@giganews.com...
> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/
> --
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ;-P
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 9:05:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Slack" <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote in message
news:AcednR92PcfGA5PeRVn-jA@giganews.com...
> Gregory Blank wrote:
>
>> In article <W6GdnUnXE5Ma9JPeRVn-hA@giganews.com>,
>> Slack <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/
>>>--
>>>Rich
>>
>>
>> Still not enough megapixels at the price point to warrant dropping medium
>> format, until that point in time I'll stick with two cheap D70
>> bodies for digital work. Thanks for the link.
>>
>
>
> Hey, there aint nothing wrong with a couple D70's :-)
>
>
> I'm just kinda exited looking forward a few years from now. I think we will
> all be happy at what will become the "standard" regardless of whether it
> comes from Canon, Nikon, Oly or ?? At least we're heading in the right
> direction.
> --
> Slack

Is it difficult for you to use the keyboard with one hand down your pants?
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 9:05:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ed Lowe wrote:
> "Slack" <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:AcednR92PcfGA5PeRVn-jA@giganews.com...
>> Gregory Blank wrote:
>>
>>> In article <W6GdnUnXE5Ma9JPeRVn-hA@giganews.com>,
>>> Slack <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/
>>>> --
>>>> Rich
>>>
>>>
>>> Still not enough megapixels at the price point to warrant dropping
>>> medium format, until that point in time I'll stick with two cheap
>>> D70 bodies for digital work. Thanks for the link.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hey, there aint nothing wrong with a couple D70's :-)
>>
>>
>> I'm just kinda exited looking forward a few years from now. I
>> think
>> we will all be happy at what will become the "standard" regardless
>> of whether it comes from Canon, Nikon, Oly or ?? At least we're
>> heading in the right direction.
>> --
>> Slack
>
> Is it difficult for you to use the keyboard with one hand down your
> pants?

Any chance your couth level will ever exceed your surname?

Must be depressing to wake up so poorly integrated every day.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 9:07:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Gregory Blank" <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote in message
news:greg-461CA1.00242326082005@news.verizon.net...
> In article <APvPe.2647$sw6.821@fed1read05>,
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> I know, a larger sensor, more resolution, brighter, larger viewfinder,
>> spot
>> meter (where all but the 1 series lacked that), interesting "invisible"
>> focus points, those all add up to terminal boredom, don't they?
>
> Problem is doing pro work, if you do it , you want to own two bodies
> which you realistically need. Are you ready to cough up 6-7 grand?
>
> & if you retain a different body you still need lenses for full frame
> imaging so there are a few down sides.
>

As a matter of fact, yes. We are looking to buy two bodies. Two full frame
5D bodies come it an less than $7000, or less than one 1Ds mkII. And all of
the lenses we use on a day to day basis are already EF mount, not EF-S
mount.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 9:10:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11gt5qlic86tj23@corp.supernews.com...
> Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> I know, a larger sensor, more resolution, brighter, larger viewfinder,
>> spot
>> meter (where all but the 1 series lacked that), interesting "invisible"
>> focus points, those all add up to terminal boredom, don't they?
>
> Yeah, pretty much. I guess if you're looking for a step up from a 20D,
> but you don't want to go to the 1 series for some reason, it would be an
> interesting option, but I don't see anything special here apart from the
> physical sensor size, and if Canon's example super-wide shot is any
> indication, that's actually a negative point.
>
> Apart from that, it's just a mid-spec body with an oversized sensor.
> Nothing that'll get me better pictures. The larger viewfinder is a big
> plus, of course, and if you're shooting with non-pro Canon stuff the
> spot meter would be welcome, but still. If I was going to drop the
> cash, I'd still look at the 1 series if I used Canon.
>
> --
> Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

One reason not to go the route of a 1Ds mkII is cost. We can buy two 5D
bodies for less than what a 1Ds mkII costs.
And if you don't think that the sensor size, ability to use L lenses to
their designed capabilities, and a spot meter will get you better images,
and you do think that a more expensive, heavier, better sealed body will,
your priorities are different from mine, to put it politely.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 10:58:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Assuming the historgram at the back is as useless as it is on my 350D,
he might not have realised how bad it was until he downloaded the
photos. As for why he didn't take more, time constraints?

No one should pass judgement on this camera until its in the field and
decent reviews have been done by multiple sources...
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 11:18:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:
> I believe Phil mentioned something on the forum to the effect of
> "Don't judge the camera by my photography, I overexposed, etc."

"Don't judge the camera by the pictures it makes, but by the features
it claims (FF, a lot of pixels, ...)"

SCNR

PS: The landscape example canon put up is an other proof that we should
*NOT* judge the camera by the pictures it makes, but by the specs canon
gives us.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 1:23:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Slack" <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote in message
news:W6GdnUnXE5Ma9JPeRVn-hA@giganews.com...
> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/
>
> --
> Rich

God, you are such a hemorrhoid.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 3:13:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <W6GdnUnXE5Ma9JPeRVn-hA@giganews.com>, slacker7
_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net says...
> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/

Is it just me or do most of those test photos have blown highlights?

--
Save Photography | Shoot some film today!
Email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 3:13:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <MPG.1d78e4514bc154ef9896b1@news.mweb.co.za>,
roxy@empirerods.com says...
> > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/
>
> Is it just me or do most of those test photos have blown highlights?

They're overexposed, yes, but if you run a quick shadow/highlight over
the photos you'll find that many of the shots still have usable detail
in the highlights.

I believe Phil mentioned something on the forum to the effect of "Don't
judge the camera by my photography, I overexposed, etc."
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 5:32:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d78af27f91f47449899c3@news.verizon.net...
> In article <MPG.1d78e4514bc154ef9896b1@news.mweb.co.za>,
> roxy@empirerods.com says...
>> > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/
>>
>> Is it just me or do most of those test photos have blown highlights?
>
> They're overexposed, yes, but if you run a quick shadow/highlight over
> the photos you'll find that many of the shots still have usable detail
> in the highlights.
>
> I believe Phil mentioned something on the forum to the effect of "Don't
> judge the camera by my photography, I overexposed, etc."

So why in Gods name didn't he redo them and expose them properly???
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 8:00:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:
> In article <MPG.1d78e4514bc154ef9896b1@news.mweb.co.za>,
> roxy@empirerods.com says...
>
>>>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/
>>
>>Is it just me or do most of those test photos have blown highlights?
>
>
> They're overexposed, yes, but if you run a quick shadow/highlight over
> the photos you'll find that many of the shots still have usable detail
> in the highlights.
>
> I believe Phil mentioned something on the forum to the effect of "Don't
> judge the camera by my photography, I overexposed, etc."

So he overexposes in a review and you're supposed to trust his
judgement? Sounds a tad slack since a lot of people judge by image
quality to the eye and not "potential" features.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 9:11:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Do these people who constantly harp on about how one brand is better than
another, ever, ever take any photographs?

The seem like typical saddos who wear their cameras as jewellery and/or
status symbols!

Remember it is not so much the camera or brand of camera that matters so
much as the photographer behind it. If he/she is a useless photographer no
matter how many lenses from Canon, Nikon, Minolta et al and no matter how
many camera bodies they use, their pictures will still be rubbish.




"Slack" <slacker7_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net> wrote in message
news:W6GdnUnXE5Ma9JPeRVn-hA@giganews.com...
> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/
> --
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ;-P
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 10:26:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> And if you don't think that the sensor size, ability to use L lenses to
> their designed capabilities, and a spot meter will get you better images,
> and you do think that a more expensive, heavier, better sealed body will,
> your priorities are different from mine, to put it politely.

Yeah, I'd say so.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:36:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:32:25 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
>"Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1d78af27f91f47449899c3@news.verizon.net...
>> In article <MPG.1d78e4514bc154ef9896b1@news.mweb.co.za>,
>> roxy@empirerods.com says...
>>> > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/
>>>
>>> Is it just me or do most of those test photos have blown highlights?
>>
>> They're overexposed, yes, but if you run a quick shadow/highlight over
>> the photos you'll find that many of the shots still have usable detail
>> in the highlights.
>>
>> I believe Phil mentioned something on the forum to the effect of "Don't
>> judge the camera by my photography, I overexposed, etc."
>
>So why in Gods name didn't he redo them and expose them properly???
>

In some of the scenes, it looks like it was unavoidable, given the
subject matter (the car interior, for instance) he wanted to highlight
needed a certain exposure that blew out highlights around the car.
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:17:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <MPG.1d78e4514bc154ef9896b1@news.mweb.co.za>,
Rox-off <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote:

>In article <W6GdnUnXE5Ma9JPeRVn-hA@giganews.com>, slacker7
>_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net says...
>> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/
>
>Is it just me or do most of those test photos have blown highlights?

Look at the exposure info. It is all manually metered by the
photographer.

Looks like the banding is much more tame than on the 20D. Can't tell if
it is the camera or the software, though.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:18:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <JREPe.11279$FA3.8846@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>"Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1d78af27f91f47449899c3@news.verizon.net...
>> In article <MPG.1d78e4514bc154ef9896b1@news.mweb.co.za>,
>> roxy@empirerods.com says...
>>> > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/

>>> Is it just me or do most of those test photos have blown highlights?

>> They're overexposed, yes, but if you run a quick shadow/highlight over
>> the photos you'll find that many of the shots still have usable detail
>> in the highlights.

>> I believe Phil mentioned something on the forum to the effect of "Don't
>> judge the camera by my photography, I overexposed, etc."

>So why in Gods name didn't he redo them and expose them properly???

It might not be exposure at all; it might be RAW conversion.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:22:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <l3IPe.39308$Il.33474@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
<n.cummings@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Do these people who constantly harp on about how one brand is better than
>another, ever, ever take any photographs?

I consider people like that *AND* people like you, who ask if anyone
actually takes photographs, to be boring wasters of bandwidth.

People have the right to discuss technology, and they don't need to take
"real world" photos to discuss it.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 3:14:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Benedikt Schenker" <Benedikt.Schenker@mt.com> wrote in message
news:1125065907.420539.121200@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Brian Baird wrote:
>> I believe Phil mentioned something on the forum to the effect of
>> "Don't judge the camera by my photography, I overexposed, etc."
>
> "Don't judge the camera by the pictures it makes, but by the features
> it claims (FF, a lot of pixels, ...)"
>
> SCNR
>
> PS: The landscape example canon put up is an other proof that we should
> *NOT* judge the camera by the pictures it makes, but by the specs canon
> gives us.

Should we judge it by the images we take, or still stick to Canon's specs?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
August 27, 2005 4:10:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Benedikt Schenker wrote:

> Brian Baird wrote:
>> I believe Phil mentioned something on the forum to the effect of
>> "Don't judge the camera by my photography, I overexposed, etc."
>
> "Don't judge the camera by the pictures it makes, but by the features
> it claims (FF, a lot of pixels, ...)"
>
> SCNR
>
> PS: The landscape example canon put up is an other proof that we should
> *NOT* judge the camera by the pictures it makes, but by the specs canon
> gives us.


Damn right. Since very few people here ever post examples of what their
camera can do anyway, this new camera has some KILLER bragging rights!
--

Stacey
August 27, 2005 4:10:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> Benedikt Schenker wrote:
>
>
>>Brian Baird wrote:
>>
>>>I believe Phil mentioned something on the forum to the effect of
>>>"Don't judge the camera by my photography, I overexposed, etc."
>>
>>"Don't judge the camera by the pictures it makes, but by the features
>>it claims (FF, a lot of pixels, ...)"
>>
>>SCNR
>>
>>PS: The landscape example canon put up is an other proof that we should
>>*NOT* judge the camera by the pictures it makes, but by the specs canon
>>gives us.
>
>
>
> Damn right. Since very few people here ever post examples of what their
> camera can do anyway, this new camera has some KILLER bragging rights!


So, why don't you throw-up .... your work. Let's see what you got.
-
Slack
August 27, 2005 4:13:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

>
> People have the right to discuss technology, and they don't need to take
> "real world" photos to discuss it.

Kinda a waste to buy the "technically best" gear and never put it to use
isn't it? I've found that many times what looks best on paper, doesn't
always pan out as the best in use.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 5:26:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <pFDPe.2701$sw6.2585@fed1read05>,
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> And if you don't think that the sensor size, ability to use L lenses to
> their designed capabilities,

The big mistake is that FF digital will NOT degrade lens performance.
Tests have shown that many times; I have "borrowed" a few on my website:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/smak/tests/C1635L.jpg
and
http://home.wanadoo.nl/smak/tests/C1740L.jpg

Both lenses perform significantly less on FF digital, compared to both
APS size and also film. (!) Which is exactly like my own experience with
a 1Ds+ 16-35L that I have used (freelancing for a studio that uses
Canon) on several occasions.

In real life this means, that a smaller sensor has advantages both with
wideangle, and with telephoto. (!) That must also be why the only system
designed from the ground up for digital (Olympus E) uses a smaller size
chip, and ALL brands except Canon went for the APS size.

The questionable-quality 5D Canon official demo-shot of the landscape
(the one with the blurry edges...) was taken with 17-40, 17mm at f/8.
see test above, the "best" aperture at 17mm. Things will only get worse
from there. f/4 looks almost unuseable, especially when compared to
film, where f/4 at 17mm reaches a score of about 80. (85 is "excellent"
level with these tests) f/2.8 with 16-35L actually IS unuseable on FF
digital, I can tell you.

But, it looks like many people are going to find this out the expensive
way... If I were in the market for a $4k, 12MP cam, the D2x would be my
choice no doubt.

Lourens
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 5:26:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Lourens Smak" <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:smak-18B6E9.01260027082005@news.euronet.nl...
> In article <pFDPe.2701$sw6.2585@fed1read05>,
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> And if you don't think that the sensor size, ability to use L lenses to
>> their designed capabilities,
>
> The big mistake is that FF digital will NOT degrade lens performance.
> Tests have shown that many times; I have "borrowed" a few on my website:
>
> http://home.wanadoo.nl/smak/tests/C1635L.jpg
> and
> http://home.wanadoo.nl/smak/tests/C1740L.jpg
>
> Both lenses perform significantly less on FF digital, compared to both
> APS size and also film. (!) Which is exactly like my own experience with
> a 1Ds+ 16-35L that I have used (freelancing for a studio that uses
> Canon) on several occasions.
>
> In real life this means, that a smaller sensor has advantages both with
> wideangle, and with telephoto. (!) That must also be why the only system
> designed from the ground up for digital (Olympus E) uses a smaller size
> chip, and ALL brands except Canon went for the APS size.
>
> The questionable-quality 5D Canon official demo-shot of the landscape
> (the one with the blurry edges...) was taken with 17-40, 17mm at f/8.
> see test above, the "best" aperture at 17mm. Things will only get worse
> from there. f/4 looks almost unuseable, especially when compared to
> film, where f/4 at 17mm reaches a score of about 80. (85 is "excellent"
> level with these tests) f/2.8 with 16-35L actually IS unuseable on FF
> digital, I can tell you.
>
> But, it looks like many people are going to find this out the expensive
> way... If I were in the market for a $4k, 12MP cam, the D2x would be my
> choice no doubt.
>
> Lourens

Aside from the fact that I don't understand German, two things leap out at
me from the graphs you posted. 1) the 16-35 performs in
"gesamtwirkungsgrad" significantly worse on digital full frame than on film.
(I'm guessing "Kleinbildfilm" translates to "film") and I wish someone could
explain why that is the case, and 2) that the difference in "Randabdunklung"
at the levels film achieved is insignificant compared to digital, but
digital somehow resolved more (?) and had a smoother curve. I'm referring
to the charts for the 16-35, of course.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
August 27, 2005 7:13:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Slack wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
>
>> Damn right. Since very few people here ever post examples of what their
>> camera can do anyway, this new camera has some KILLER bragging rights!
>
>
> So, why don't you throw-up .... your work. Let's see what you got.


Search a bit and you'll find plenty. I'd have been GLAD to post some links
if you'd have asked nice..

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 2:43:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> Slack wrote:
>
>
>>Stacey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Damn right. Since very few people here ever post examples of what their
>>>camera can do anyway, this new camera has some KILLER bragging rights!
>>
>>
>>So, why don't you throw-up .... your work. Let's see what you got.
>
>
>
> Search a bit and you'll find plenty. I'd have been GLAD to post some links
> if you'd have asked nice..
>

Sounds like a copout to me.
August 27, 2005 4:00:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:


>
> ... and what does it become when you crop a small area of the image,

Proof that you are a VERY poor photographer..

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:51:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <3na7d8Fjqc0U1@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Damn right. Since very few people here ever post examples of what their
>camera can do anyway, this new camera has some KILLER bragging rights!

You're confused. You are really talking about "what people can do with
their cameras", not "what their cameras can do", the former being more
off-topic here, and the latter more on-topic.

You think this is an art contest here. Not that you'd win, either, if
one were held.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:56:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <3na7ioFjqc0U2@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:

>> People have the right to discuss technology, and they don't need to take
>> "real world" photos to discuss it.

>Kinda a waste to buy the "technically best" gear and never put it to use
>isn't it?

That's none of my business, really. That's a matter of other people's
budgets and interests.

Do not forget that what people choose to talk about in a *TECHNOLOGY*
newsgroup does not necessarily represent the scope of their photographic
activities.

>I've found that many times what looks best on paper, doesn't
>always pan out as the best in use.

Then you may be looking at the wrong part of the paper, or drawing the
wrong conclusions, or the paper is measuring the wrong things for your
application.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
August 27, 2005 4:56:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> or the paper is measuring the wrong things for your
> application.

Make that "The wrong things for MOST people's application" and I would
agree. Like here in this group, the ONLY spec anyone seems to care about is
ISO 1600 (and up) noise performance which for most people is a useless
spec. It's like bragging about how much HP a certain car makes when the
engine is reved to 8000RPM, how often does anyone even go there if ever?


Lets forget about WA lens performance and throw optical image quality to the
wind just to get a cleaner out of camera ISO 1600 shot? Then again for a
gear head, this is the holy grail of specs since it's easily quantifiable
with no artistic skill or subjective judgement on image "quality"
required.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:56:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3nbguiFolnhU1@individual.net...
> JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>> or the paper is measuring the wrong things for your
>> application.
>
> Make that "The wrong things for MOST people's application" and I would
> agree. Like here in this group, the ONLY spec anyone seems to care about
> is
> ISO 1600 (and up) noise performance which for most people is a useless
> spec. It's like bragging about how much HP a certain car makes when the
> engine is reved to 8000RPM, how often does anyone even go there if ever?
>
>
> Lets forget about WA lens performance and throw optical image quality to
> the
> wind just to get a cleaner out of camera ISO 1600 shot? Then again for a
> gear head, this is the holy grail of specs since it's easily quantifiable
> with no artistic skill or subjective judgement on image "quality"
> required.
> --
>
> Stacey

Why are we taking optical image quality out of the mix? We've seen one
image taken with the 17-40, none with the 16-35, and several at 24mm with
the 24-105 f4, the latter looking pretty good. So, let's not combine WA
lens performance, or lack thereof, with camera performance, shall we. It
looks like the camera will provide excellent images, given lenses that can
keep up with its sensor.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 7:39:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 11:59:13 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>> or the paper is measuring the wrong things for your
>> application.
>
>Make that "The wrong things for MOST people's application" and I would
>agree. Like here in this group, the ONLY spec anyone seems to care about is
>ISO 1600 (and up) noise performance which for most people is a useless

Okay. Despite my 'nym, I am a long-time Nikon user. And I carry
around 2-3 film bodies so that I can shoot 1600 Ektachrome in one of
them, because for me it's a real need. I do a lot of low-light
photography where flash is an absolute, absolute no-no, especially
after September 11 and July 7. And also good wide-angle.

So, I am impressed by ISO 1600, IF it proves to have decent image
quality. Now, my ideal Nikon D SLR, besides being full-frame, would
also be rated at (50 or 100) - 3200, plus H1, H2, and maybe even H3
for those coal mine at midnight shots.


>spec. It's like bragging about how much HP a certain car makes when the
>engine is reved to 8000RPM, how often does anyone even go there if ever?

It all depends. I never redline my car (A Nissan Z car), but even
below redline, I get very peppy performance.
>
>
>Lets forget about WA lens performance and throw optical image quality to the
>wind just to get a cleaner out of camera ISO 1600 shot? Then again for a
>gear head, this is the holy grail of specs since it's easily quantifiable
>with no artistic skill or subjective judgement on image "quality"
>required.

Well, using the examples above, at least for me, these just aren't
about specs. And probably for others too, these aren't just 'specs.'

For me at least, a 'spec' would be 3 different high-speed crop modes,
a shutter speed range going up to 2 hours, or perhaps a built-in flash
in a pro-level body.

My point. Different people have different needs, and the
manufacturers try to 'cover' enough of the marketplace to appeal to a
broad audience.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 1:40:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote:

> ... and what does it become when you crop a small area of the image, and
> boost the levels because there wasn't enough light?

A rejected image.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
August 28, 2005 5:35:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M wrote:


>
> Why are we taking optical image quality out of the mix?

I have no idea why anyone would...

> We've seen one
> image taken with the 17-40, none with the 16-35, and several at 24mm with
> the 24-105 f4, the latter looking pretty good. So, let's not combine WA
> lens performance, or lack thereof, with camera performance, shall we.

These are "camera systems" and are only as good as their weakest link. The
user has to decide which parts of the system are important to them as far
as "image quality". The problem with just reading specs and looking at
graphs is they are FAR from showing the whole picture of how the system
performs outside of the lab. I've seen quite a few WA images taken with a
1DSmkII and all the people who are "serious" are being forced to use other
makers WA lenses manually on an adapter to get decent performance. No an
"optimized system" if you ask me!

> It
> looks like the camera will provide excellent images, given lenses that can
> keep up with its sensor.
>

I never said there is ANYTHING wrong with this camera have I? It actually
looks interesting and IF Canon had a good wide lens to use on it, I would
seriously consider buying one to replace my mamiya 645. Unfortunately, it
doesn't look like one exists right now so it's still a wait game...

--

Stacey
August 28, 2005 5:40:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Father Kodak wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 11:59:13 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>It's like bragging about how much HP a certain car makes when the
>>engine is reved to 8000RPM, how often does anyone even go there if ever?
>
> It all depends. I never redline my car (A Nissan Z car), but even
> below redline, I get very peppy performance.

My point was lots of recent cars have given up LOTS of 2-4000RPM power just
to get a high "peak" power rating at 7,000+RPM for bragging rights. To give
up optical quality (or dynamic range) at lower ISO's for high ISO
performance isn't a good trade off for me.


--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 6:32:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Proof that you are a VERY poor photographer..
>
> --
>
> Stacey


Yes...exactly!

But you will at least sleep much better at night knowing that the noise
pattern on your poorly framed, poorly exposed picture looks AT LEAST 2.4%
better than if you had been using a <insert your nemisis brand here>

Something I'm sure your editor/art director/client will be enthralled to
discuss with you at length when you submit your work.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 6:32:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 02:32:56 +1000, "Steve Franklin" <honkey@lips.com>
wrote:

>
>> Proof that you are a VERY poor photographer..
>>
>> --
>>
>> Stacey
>
>
>Yes...exactly!
>
>But you will at least sleep much better at night knowing that the noise
>pattern on your poorly framed, poorly exposed picture looks AT LEAST 2.4%
>better than if you had been using a <insert your nemisis brand here>
>
>Something I'm sure your editor/art director/client will be enthralled to
>discuss with you at length when you submit your work.

I think this is a bit harsh. It all depends on what you are
photographing. If you shoot pictures on sunny days and are able
to get close to the subject, you have no problem. However, go
into a forest with a heavy canopy and try shooting pictures of
animals. No cropping or playing with the brightness settings?
Consider yourself lucky. I went into the woods the other day
and the exposure at 100ISO was 1/8th at f2.4. Meanwhile, it
was 1/250 at f4 outside the woods. There are situations where
you can't obtain the ideal conditions and that is where certain
aspects of camera performance can make a difference.


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 6:32:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:q4r1h1p2ogf1gum71ak3s26irqlmkv286p@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 02:32:56 +1000, "Steve Franklin" <honkey@lips.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Proof that you are a VERY poor photographer..
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Stacey
>>
>>
>>Yes...exactly!
>>
>>But you will at least sleep much better at night knowing that the noise
>>pattern on your poorly framed, poorly exposed picture looks AT LEAST 2.4%
>>better than if you had been using a <insert your nemisis brand here>
>>
>>Something I'm sure your editor/art director/client will be enthralled to
>>discuss with you at length when you submit your work.
>
> I think this is a bit harsh. It all depends on what you are
> photographing. If you shoot pictures on sunny days and are able
> to get close to the subject, you have no problem. However, go
> into a forest with a heavy canopy and try shooting pictures of
> animals. No cropping or playing with the brightness settings?
> Consider yourself lucky. I went into the woods the other day
> and the exposure at 100ISO was 1/8th at f2.4. Meanwhile, it
> was 1/250 at f4 outside the woods. There are situations where
> you can't obtain the ideal conditions and that is where certain
> aspects of camera performance can make a difference.
>
>
> "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
> never gave us refunds for in the past"

Since you seem to have an experienced approach to photographing wildlife in
their native habitat, I have a question. In going through various "Wildlife
Photography" books (George Lepp, John Shaw, Moose Peterson, Etc.) in which
there seems to be an unending supply of extremely well done wildlife images,
there is no mention of using (or needing) an ISO of 6400, 3200, 1600 and
barely a mention of 800. There is the discussion of Velvia pushed to 100 or
an ISO 100 film pushed to 200 and the rare use of ISO 800 (an ISO 400,
pushed to 800).
How did (and do) they manage without the "must have" of ISO 1600 plus with
today's digital DSLRs.
It will be interesting to see if I can get a rational and not agenda-driven
answer from this knowledgeable group.
Bob
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 6:32:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Robert Brace <rlbrace@shaw.ca> wrote:

> How did (and do) they manage without the "must have" of ISO 1600 plus with
> today's digital DSLRs.

That's what separates "good" from "great".

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
!