Mu-43 Hall of Famer
- Jan 29, 2010
- South Gippsland, Australia
- Real Name
- Ray, not Oz
Printing is extremely forgiving especially with 8x10. Retina displays, however, is not as forgiving. And in some cases, extremely high resolution printing even @ 8x10 can also become unforgiving as well.Pretty much what I've found with my E-M1: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/07/13/we-present-our-2014-high-iso-8x10-showdown.
Clearly the final purpose of the image is important, but I think your examples of the sports world are somewhat misplaced. All of these guys use Nikon/Canon gear, not because of ISO performance, but because of AF performance primarily (it is still the best). The lowest noise shots are useless if they are out of focus. ISO performance has little to do with the final results nowadays with the cameras that we have.Printing is extremely forgiving especially with 8x10. Retina displays, however, is not as forgiving but it is what some people base their ISO IQ on. And in some cases, extremely high resolution printing even @ 8x10 can also become unforgiving as well.
So it's basically comes down to this. What is your final output going to be and how is it going to be acceptable?
For example. If you're shooting for the FIFA Worldcup and you're a freelancer. More than 60% of the shooters there shoot with Canons, mainly 1DX, and their most used ISOs ranges 6400, 12,800 to 25,600 and the rest are D4s and D4 shooters and if you're shooting with an E-M1 in the hopes of selling your photos, then your luck would not be good. The problem is. It's competition not on skills because almost everyone is just as good. It's on ISO performance and how clean and sharp the files are. The higher res is better on detail which is a plus for the 1DX and noise is good and then you have a sale.
So if you're competing in any photo competition where your opponents are using better gear and have the same skills as yours, then all of this comparison is simply valid for just an 8x10 print, and only valid for the reviewers who judged. The problem with these reviews is that, there are no standards. What's valid for this review is not valid for Corbis, AP, AFP, EPA, Getty Images and so forth.
ISO acceptance is only valid for those who are buying your work or who is judging your work not what is deemed acceptable here in this case, from a website, from a guru or from a magazine.
But if you're just shooting for fun, then the current MFT sensor technology is good.
During the FIFA World Cup, there were a long line up of people at the Canon booth all wanting to borrow a Canon 1DX. Same with on the Nikon booth. Here's why your explanation don't add up. If AF is really important, why are they lining up for a 1DX or D4s when they have a 1ds Mark 3 or a Nikon D3s as their own or the Canon 7D and Nikon D7100? I am sure that the Nikon D7100 or 7D aren't all that poor in regards to getting sharp photos. That's a skills issue if you can't get sharp photos.Clearly the final purpose of the image is important, but I think your examples of the sports world are somewhat misplaced. All of these guys use Nikon/Canon gear, not because of ISO performance, but because of AF performance primarily (it is still the best). The lowest noise shots are useless if they are out of focus. ISO performance has little to do with the final results nowadays with the cameras that we have.
One of the most important things with major sports events is access to the right spots and flexibility with what you want to do, if you're stuck in a bad spot, no camera will get you good results (except by accident). I've shot next to Getty photographers and they are not some mythical creatures with halos around their heads and the gift of the gods in skill levels. Many rely on the spray and pray technique, and chimp like the best amateurs on the planet. Give me the right position at the World Cup and I would deliver as good results with my E-M1 as anyone with their Nikons/Canons. I may have to work harder, but believe me, I've been there, done that. And not all of these photographers are equally skilled, far from it.
Also, none of these sports photographers are in it for photo competition purposes, they are there to provide photos for their agency, newspaper etc. Sharp, in-focus, photos that capture the moment are what matter. If it's a once in a lifetime shot and happens to be noisy, the agency wouldn't give a rat's rear as far as the noise goes, it's the moment that matters. Amateurs keep harping on about technical details that are important, but that's because they don't understand the reality of life as a photojournalist, sports photographer, or whatever. Amateurs always think it's about the equipment and that the latest and greatest is all important.
I'm saying that all of the models, even the older ones, have superior AF, period. Pros don't change cameras like amateurs, who are always looking for the latest and greatest with which to shoot more ducks. And why were people 'borrowing' cameras? That already indicates why Nikon/Canon are popular, because the manufacturers are out there marketing their products, trying to get people to upgrade. Olympus doesn't do that because no one would take them seriously and quite possibly they wouldn't even be allowed to hawk their wares, as the likes of Nikon/Canon pay heavily to be able to exclusively market at such events. There was even a photo doing the rounds from I think the Superbowl, where Nikon users had to wear Canon vests, or vice versa, because of the endorsement payments.During the FIFA World Cup and as I was there working the circuit, there were a long line up of people at the Canon booth all wanting to borrow a Canon 1DX. Same with on the Nikon booth. Here's why your explanation don't add up. If AF is really important, why are they lining up for a 1DX or D4s when they have a 1ds Mark 3 or a Nikon D3s as their own? So are you implying that the AF on the Nikon D3s and 1ds Mark 3 aren't up to snuff on this World Cup? Secondly, wouldn't you be weary of shooting a new camera on a meet like this when you're already comfortable with a D3s or 1ds Mark 3? The operation of the D4s is vastly different than a D3s and crash course isn't going to get you going when you are spraying and praying for that great shot. Wouldn't you stick with your own equipment? And lastly, I didn't realize that Canon 7D, Nikon D7000 and D7100 AF performance are not even World Cup ready and these are the cameras people were trading up to a 1DX or D4s on loan from both C and N so they can shoot. Why are they loaning a 1DX then or a D4s?
Like I said before. What camera you use is dependent solely on your client's needs and expectation. It is true what you said that position and location in the Media Tribune is more important in getting that great shot. BUT, sadly professional photographers who are securely contracted by paid clients like Corbus, Getty, AFP, EPA, and AP as well as Xinhua are going for the best equipment because some of these agencies provide for them with the latest gear and assured them of their paid work are a scarcity.
Today's reality is that people are only paid per image on sanctioned events (like 10 to 20 Euros I was told), which is why you have a lot of those wannabe amateurs with their Canon 7D and Nikon D7100 or Nikon D40 and D50 all lining up to get the best. They are the freelancers and if you haven't made a name for yourself, then it is a matter of competition, because for 10 to 20 Euros per photo, it isn't enough to even pay for your hotel room or plane ticket. You need to sell heck of a lot of images and have a lot of keepers, and of course you're not the only one doing it. Which is why I ALWAYS SEE long line ups of people borrowing new equipment from both N and C eventhough they have their own cameras which is maybe a generation old. Perhaps your time when you're working it is different, but I'm sad to say that it's not today.
And what cameras were used by the pros covering the event? Sony, Panasonic? Note what I said in my first para: 'There was even a photo doing the rounds from I think the Superbowl, where Nikon users had to wear Canon vests, or vice versa, because of the endorsement payments.' It matters squat who the advertisers are, even Olympus was the prime advertiser at recent tennis championship (I think it was) and all the photographers were using Nikon/Canon. Nikon/Canon have the sports photographers in their pocket, for good reason.Both Nikon and Canon were not official sponsors; Sony and Panasonic were.
Secondly, your second comment does not make sense. Filter out the amateurs and their junk. How do you think the market price for photographs had been driven down to bits? It is the very nature of these free and giving freely away crappy photos that solidify the excuse that a photograph is just a piece of commodity. And clients don't necessarily dictate the camera that you must use? And yet I see big agencies like EPA, AFP, AP and the well off "provide" the latest cameras (1DX or D4/D4s) to their top professionals. It's nice when you're on someone's guaranteed payroll, plus these bigger agencies are more than happy to "re-sell" their photos to the smaller agencies. And usually the smaller agencies cave in and say, yeah I'll buy them. So while they don't dictate what we use; we are nonetheless influenced.
Consumers are influenced by what the professionals use; especially the ones that provided the photos for the matches. And these influences are very much what drive the standards to be. Like what your examples provided that those 8x10 ISO standards are basically opinions from some people who approve of those standards. It is based on human judgement and if you agree with that judgement, then you accept that standard.
For such tests, would it be allowed to cheat viewer/judge by saying photos are from "high end" camera if they ask?I think sometimes you have to give some trust to these reviewers and reviews, understanding the limitations. Given that they specifically used a final print as the benchmark, I think the summary is fairly accurate. It's been known for a long time that what appears to be 'noisy' on-screen, often looks completely different when viewed in print and can be transformative. That's how I've so often proved people wrong when they say that 4/3s (as it was then) is incapable of producing good quality large prints with low noise characteristics. I can recollect at least one person, on seeing some of these prints going 'wow' and then when told what camera took the photos, trying to do some clumsy back-pedaling looking for faults.[emoji3]
And what is extremely high dot density printing? (it is not resolution, but pixel density)Printing is extremely forgiving especially with 8x10. Retina displays, however, is not as forgiving. And in some cases, extremely high resolution printing even @ 8x10 can also become unforgiving as well.
So it's basically comes down to this. What is your final output going to be and how is it going to be acceptable?
Unless the judge asked what specific camera took the photo I would say, even if it was taken by an iPhone, that it was a high end camera.For such tests, would it be allowed to cheat viewer/judge by saying photos are from "high end" camera if they ask?
As if they believe they are from camera they expect to deliver such results they focus to give critic instead negativity focusing what is bad.
Then when you finally give the truth of camera they either learn it is the photo that matters and not the gear.