Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by OzRay, Mar 4, 2014.
Great read...thanks for posting this...
Gawd...I remember when coworker came to work with a D2xs... He bought it because he was told to buy it to get the very best... He sold it after a year and ended up buying a tiny Toshiba P&S...I believe his words were "Who was I kidding...?"
Yeah, consider the latest D4s, it now has ISO 409,000!!!
Great article, good to read stuff that is not based on the ego, or the wallet.
You know, I can barely wrap my head around that. That's an insane level of sensitivity. Does nobody want any sort of "darkness" in their photos anymore? My own brain tops out at about ISO 1600. After that, if a room is so dark it requires more than that, it starts to look really weird in photos.
When the D3 came out, all the sports photographers were ecstatic that they could now shoot under the usual stadium lighting and get great, clean, usable results. The D3 went to ISO 25,600, but everyone thought the ISO3200/6400 was more than enough, not many wanted to shoot black cats in a coal mine. But like the MP wars, it wasn't enough for the camera companies. I wonder what's left?
The photos I take in really low light have taught me that really low light rarely has attractive colouring. As a painterly photo-artist (squawk! guffaw! choke! - well I wish to be one day) I generally don't like them. (low key photography is a different topic, I am talking about full exposure here). So I tend to go monochrome with my low-light shots, in which case I play with grain levels as an asset.
So I struggle to find uses for ultra-high ISO settings. Maybe if I was a PI on surveillance....
Now let's get the race for insane dynamic range going pleas
And I loved my 1Ds
I would rather have the dynamic range over ISO ridiculous. I think that when the global shutter becomes fully realised, then maybe that could come to fruition, if my understanding of the global shutter is correct. It means that areas of the sensor could be turned 'off', once an appropriate level of light had been received, ie the requisite grey tone had been achieved. Just think, the brightest highlights and the deepest shadows, and everything in-between, would be perfectly exposed; or exposed the way you want.
I've been suspecting something along these lines for the last couple years. It's part of why I've quit worrying about getting full frame or about sensor size in general. There was a point when fx format was pretty much the only way to get above 400 or 800 but that's not true now, and I realized I only rarely shoot above 1600 anyroad. So instead of selling my mirrorless gear, instead I just sold an aps-c body and a couple lenses to pay for an e-m10 kit (I wanted the wifi control capability, focus peaking and the inbuilt flash for triggering my fl-36r) and a 60mm macro. I still print but only up to 13x19 and then only sometimes that large.
So I'm done with chasing stratospheric isos, and higher pixel counts. I don't get much out of them anyway. Now with my luck olympus and panasonic will drop m43 gear, but let's hope and pray that won't be the case.
Thanks for sharing this link.
Yes, thanks from me too. Tuck thinks quite a bit like me on this topic. Although I get climbed all over when I post along those lines here (where I thought it relatively safe to do so ).
Love these bits:
But recently, when some well known photographers compared the best of the µ4:3 cameras to the newest generation of full frame, high megapixel cameras they came to an interesting conclusion: The files from the smaller cameras looked just as good or better. Russell Rutherford (famous fashion and sports shooter) went into a store to buy a Sony A7 and came out with an Olympus EM-1.
Since about 2008 all of the better cameras (non-budget, non-point&shoot) made files that were.....good enough. Really.
all of the cameras I've come across in the last two years, from the Nikon D800 to the Olympus EP-5 to the Fuji EX2 to the Sony Nex-6 and Nex-7 and, yes, even the Pentax K-01, can deliver results that are nearly always better than the technique and capabilities of the person holding them.
A current µ4:3 camera with brilliant image stabilization will almost always produce a more detailed handheld image than a full frame, 36 megapixel camera.
I am convinced that µ4/3 is virtually at the point where we have to obsess more on technology than image to wish for more. And it won't be too long before 1" gets there (although it has to be as a system). I am happy to move down the ladder as that happens. Rung by rung. And that is why I find that the idea that the A7 is some kind of game-changer is bizarre from the perspective of utility -- even though it is potentially a marketing success.
Funnily enough, I have an 11" x 14" print of my 4WD in a bush setting taken with a Canon 2MP camera in 2002 and it looks better than a same sized print taken of an earlier 4WD with 35mm film in 1995. The dynamic range is better, the colour is better and it has more detail compared to the 35mm shot. When I put the two together the first time, I was absolutely gobsmacked at how good a 2MP image printed. I have thought about the Sony A7r, but when I consider photos such as these and others that I've printed to 17" x 22" (the biggest that I can do in single sheet), I wonder what it is that makes me consider the Sony. Is it some residual belief that FF is better no matter what?
I want to know what was the significance of the image of the kids eating food he posted. EXIF says Samsung, and since such a smart man would definitely not have a Samsung camera, I'm assuming he used his phone for that photo?
Thanks! I love Kirk Tuck, but I didn't know he had another blog. Bookmarked
Samsung gave him an NX series to review. Said it was a decent camera but a lack of EVF was deal breaker for him.
That's exactly what it is. Constantly fueled and stoked by others who share that belief. How many times have I heard and read "a full frame sensor always wins, given same production era"? What that phrase, indisputably technically correct at the single-pixel level, overlooks is the question of real life output, which is a combination of practical field technique, choice and size of medium, and the eye's resolving ability. And that is not even considering the elephant in the room, whether our images are any good photographically! And that is what Tuck is bringing to our attention: in terms of what you and I actually do in terms of real life outputs, a full frame camera offers us nothing!
I fully agree with the article. Indeed, most photographers would do just fine with older gear, since very few people print anyhow. But we humans have this weakness. It's called insecurity. We all have this insecurity which manifests itself into fear -- am I keeping up with the Joneses. Basically digital photography has somewhat promoted this notion that I must keep up. If it's not DR or HDR with obscene photoshop doctoring, it's the obsession with super HI-ISO. Now, I'm always a proponent of a camera being a tool and if a photographer needs a certain tool, then it's okay to own that tool. No butcher would use a surgeon's knife to chop; it would take too long. Neither would a surgeon use a butcher knife to cut you up inside either!
Having said that, there is a place for full frame and so far, that's the tool people use for cropping and high shutter speeds in low light. People want unique images period and not a lot of unique images are made in low light, because most of that are done in black and white which gives you a better latitude in the dark. So it's not a surprise that people shoot with high-iso to get that shot no one had done. If you want to get noticed, points and making money, the only way is by making unique images. Not sharp, not fancy Photoshop doctored but unique images.
It's very difficult these days to make unique images because Corbus, Getty, AP, Reuters, Sun Wah news agency, and the National Geographic have an archive FULL of great images. The chances of yours being unique and marketable is hopeless at best. So people need to adopt a mentality that they should just have fun with their photography and be willing to experiment, push their envelope, push their comfort level beyond in order to get better images rather than chasing for the next best sharpest lens or the next best full frame camera, because a camera and lens doesn't make good photographs. You do!
I'd also like more dynamic range rather than ludicrous high iso, but I'll take both
I think it's no so much the low light per se, but the lower light but still relatively 'bright' scenes where you need to freeze action with high shutter speeds that higher ISO really shines, and/or shooting longer lenses. For me, the best higher ISO shots I have are wildlife shots, later afternoon light, where I want to keep the shutter speed above 1/600 or 1/1000, but still have a 'daylight' exposed image. For darker shots (more shadows, i.e. less information) I tend to switch to black and white, and just be glade I can get an acceptable shutter speed.
I have been saying for the last 5 or so years we have enough MP to print reasonably up to a large size, I have A0 prints done from a Ricoh GX100 at base iso and they loot fine when you stand at an appropriate distance. Unless you have some one putting their nose to the image our 16mp images using a sensible ASA rating will be printable to a good size. Yes nearly all cameras are good enough have been for a while and its a matter of how it feels in your hand.
For most photographers, adopt a wait and see attitude and buy the last generation body or buy refurbished is the best way to save money and enjoy new tech. I bought most of my gear either used or refurbished. Aside from a few blemishes and scratches, they work perfectly fine. Why not let others absorb the depreciation? Bodies don't retain their value as much as a lens. Sooner or later the Sony A7 will become cheap enough that it will be in my travel bag with a 35mm prime Zeiss lens. Right now, I'm happy that my Coolpix A is helping my E-PL1 at night or when I need more DR in daylight. Would I want a Sony A7 with that Zeiss prime; sure I do. I would be lying if I don't, but I still see the m43 format versatility is in the small lenses and the colors from my E-PL1; yeah it's good enough for me.