Natan Lorenzi: So, I downloded the Nikon D800 (1600 - 25600) raw files and resized @ 22mpx. Both cameras has the same results at same iso ans same size (22mpx). But Nikon has more advantage because you can apply more Noise Reduction and more USM without degrade image, before you downsampling the image.
if you doubt it, try it.
Yeah, I agree, the 3rd concern is a temporary one. But I thought it was worth noting. Before blindly purchasing it and expecting to do-everything, one has to see all benefits and drawbacks.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 29, 2012 at 09:54:18 UTC
Natan Lorenzi: So, I downloded the Nikon D800 (1600 - 25600) raw files and resized @ 22mpx. Both cameras has the same results at same iso ans same size (22mpx). But Nikon has more advantage because you can apply more Noise Reduction and more USM without degrade image, before you downsampling the image.
if you doubt it, try it.
The d800 seems like a dream camera, but those people who tried it said three very important things:
1) Focus must be spot-on every time, there's no room for error at 36mpx. Shooting at f1.4 or f1.2 is VERY hard. And unfortunately, the camera DOES miss the focus now and then.
2) Camera shake is also more pronounced, so it's advisable to use higher shutter speed than usual rule of thumb based on the focal length alone.
3) The PC or Mac and cards that host those images must be up to date and very large. Even in 2012, opening a 21mpix raw file in LR4 from CanonMK2 on a modern machine isn't THAT much fast.
So, if you consider and accept those three remarks, you'll be very satisfied with D800. But keep them in mind.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 28, 2012 at 22:00:21 UTC
Paul Ennis: Nikon shows total contempt for it's customers, does anybody think it's a "local internal systems error"? How stupid do they think people are?
Still, UK people will buy them, stupid or not. That's what matters to Nikon... Sad but true. And Nikon is not alone in this, on the contrary - EVERY big corp does this more or less.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 26, 2012 at 19:29:38 UTC
36hike: I'm again amazed -- as an old timer returning to photography after a number of years -- at the utter gullibility of today's consumers. What again is the advantage of these hybrids? Size? Weight? It certainly isn't image quality.
I suppose it's a wonderful thing for those suffering from tendinitis in lugging around cumbersome dslr's. But the real motive for companies isn't tech. advancement. It's profit margin by pushing an unneeded segment to market. Small sensors equal greater profits and slow down the demand for REAL innovation, particularly in the area of anti-aliasing and color.
Often quite misleading fact about small sensors is about how good they have become with noise and how much more mpx is packed into a small package. Yes, we may see a 18mpx micro fourthirds or whatever, but BIG disadvantage about small-ish sensors is their physical size that result in large depth of field and lack of fine details. While that may be good for macros and stuff like that, it kills more creative photography (dare I say - professional). Even if they make fast lenses - they will be much more expensive than DSLR variants and DOF will again be greater for 2 stops compared to the FF. Speaking of the fine details, you can't beat physics - medium format still rules for professionals that do product photography, fashion, even portraits, etc. - we still need physically big sensors. No the Nikon's 36mpx can't beat 20mpx medium format in terms of details! The bigger the better. Period.
In the current form, I see mirrorless as toys for consumers who replaced their P&S camera.
Direct link |
Posted on Feb 15, 2012 at 09:44:14 UTC
I can't stand FB's way of showing the images. LOUSY and drastic compression, reslizing the images for 1px so nothing is as sharp as it should be, etc.
So I ended up uploading 800px photographs to FB. They look good now but sometimes they suffer terrible compression. I don't know the reason why.
So, no, I think FB's image handling is horrible. Better than it used to be, but FAR from good. And I'm not a fan of their new lateral comments. It ruins the feeling of a photo. The first thing you see is not an image but comments, sponsors and likes. I guess that's what they wanted.
Direct link |
Posted on Feb 12, 2012 at 01:45:56 UTC
as 27th comment
| 2 replies
Antonio RS: 1. The response is not calm at all. 2. He makes $50,000 in four months,not bad at all. And,8 months left. 3. I did not know you could add the price of your rent/mortgage, car, car insurance, shoe wear out, etc. that is, living, into "related" costs to justify what you charge. I am going to tell my boss to pay me more because my clothes wear out when in contact with the office chair :-) 4. He was doing so well (or maybe not), and then he ends with "on why we charge $3,000 for one day of your memories that are going to last you forever". And with that proved the bride completely right. Pity, after such long "calm" thought response.
My wedding was photographed by my uncle (he had a decent camera at the time). Now that I pay attention to others wedding pictures, they all look the same (similar type of background, same positions, etc). I saved a ton of money, plus, my pictures may not be the best but for sure are unique and kind of candid. Glad I decided to not hire a "real photographer".
We'd like to see your images so we could enjoy them in the same way you did. No offense, but your comment is typical for people who have zero understanding of photography and what it takes to make it work and look good.
"My wedding was photographed by my uncle (he had a decent camera at the time)." You said it all with that sentence. Your uncle(!) had a decent camera... Darn, I'd like to buy a decent camera so I could start taking great pictures!
Direct link |
Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 11:45:32 UTC
Well, as a former Olympus DSLR user I can safely say that they deserve to shrivel and fall with their current 4/3 line. The company made SO many mistakes and missed so many opportunities.
Direct link |
Posted on Dec 2, 2011 at 00:17:17 UTC
as 8th comment
| 3 replies
maboleth: I totally agree. Especially Microstock. That's a slavery. Initially, they take like 60-70% of the shown price. That's ridiculous. Also, they pretty much thrive on the photographers that work/live in developing countries where assignments aren't on the regular basis or paid well.
Fair enough, I agree what you said dcdigital. My point was only what microstockposts said - there's no regulation in that market right now.
Direct link |
Posted on Nov 4, 2011 at 18:24:32 UTC
maboleth: I totally agree. Especially Microstock. That's a slavery. Initially, they take like 60-70% of the shown price. That's ridiculous. Also, they pretty much thrive on the photographers that work/live in developing countries where assignments aren't on the regular basis or paid well.
You are right, 80-85% is correct, but that make things even worse. Lets talk about majority of people "working" for microstock. Because those that earn $200K+ are so rare, it's almost like the people that won the lottery. The majority however are struggling to get anything back. The image inspection is uneven and sometimes ridiculous. You are working for the agency that takes 80-85% of already ridiculously low prices. If you want something to sell, well, the production behind you must be on the higher level. From shooting to developing. Yet you don't know IF it's going to sell at all. And lets assume you tried but didn't succeed or you gave up - they pay you when you reach at least $100. That means, if I give up or I'm unable to satisfy the market and earned like 70$, I won't get anything. That means that even those images that I've sold and earned on them just 20%, I WON'T get paid! In the same time, the agency already took 80% of the price. Sorry, this is a slavish business.
Direct link |
Posted on Nov 2, 2011 at 11:19:52 UTC
I totally agree. Especially Microstock. That's a slavery. Initially, they take like 60-70% of the shown price. That's ridiculous. Also, they pretty much thrive on the photographers that work/live in developing countries where assignments aren't on the regular basis or paid well.
Direct link |
Posted on Nov 1, 2011 at 23:40:58 UTC
as 7th comment
| 5 replies
Belgrade , Serbia
Natan Lorenzi: So, I downloded the Nikon D800 (1600 - 25600) raw files and resized @ 22mpx. Both cameras has the same results at same iso ans same size (22mpx). But Nikon has more advantage because you can apply more Noise Reduction and more USM without degrade image, before you downsampling the image.
if you doubt it, try it.
Yeah, I agree, the 3rd concern is a temporary one. But I thought it was worth noting. Before blindly purchasing it and expecting to do-everything, one has to see all benefits and drawbacks.
Extremely cool perspective and 10+ for idea!
Natan Lorenzi: So, I downloded the Nikon D800 (1600 - 25600) raw files and resized @ 22mpx. Both cameras has the same results at same iso ans same size (22mpx). But Nikon has more advantage because you can apply more Noise Reduction and more USM without degrade image, before you downsampling the image.
if you doubt it, try it.
The d800 seems like a dream camera, but those people who tried it said three very important things:
1) Focus must be spot-on every time, there's no room for error at 36mpx. Shooting at f1.4 or f1.2 is VERY hard. And unfortunately, the camera DOES miss the focus now and then.
2) Camera shake is also more pronounced, so it's advisable to use higher shutter speed than usual rule of thumb based on the focal length alone.
3) The PC or Mac and cards that host those images must be up to date and very large. Even in 2012, opening a 21mpix raw file in LR4 from CanonMK2 on a modern machine isn't THAT much fast.
So, if you consider and accept those three remarks, you'll be very satisfied with D800. But keep them in mind.
Something is wrong here... MK2 looks better in low ISO in shadow ranges! MK3 ISO100 is noisy in shadows, especially in green areas.
Paul Ennis: Nikon shows total contempt for it's customers, does anybody think it's a "local internal systems error"? How stupid do they think people are?
Still, UK people will buy them, stupid or not. That's what matters to Nikon... Sad but true. And Nikon is not alone in this, on the contrary - EVERY big corp does this more or less.
Painfully slow on i5 quad core, 8gb ram, sata3 hard drives. Welcome LR3.6 again.
36hike: I'm again amazed -- as an old timer returning to photography after a number of years -- at the utter gullibility of today's consumers. What again is the advantage of these hybrids? Size? Weight? It certainly isn't image quality.
I suppose it's a wonderful thing for those suffering from tendinitis in lugging around cumbersome dslr's. But the real motive for companies isn't tech. advancement. It's profit margin by pushing an unneeded segment to market. Small sensors equal greater profits and slow down the demand for REAL innovation, particularly in the area of anti-aliasing and color.
Often quite misleading fact about small sensors is about how good they have become with noise and how much more mpx is packed into a small package. Yes, we may see a 18mpx micro fourthirds or whatever, but BIG disadvantage about small-ish sensors is their physical size that result in large depth of field and lack of fine details. While that may be good for macros and stuff like that, it kills more creative photography (dare I say - professional).
Even if they make fast lenses - they will be much more expensive than DSLR variants and DOF will again be greater for 2 stops compared to the FF.
Speaking of the fine details, you can't beat physics - medium format still rules for professionals that do product photography, fashion, even portraits, etc. - we still need physically big sensors. No the Nikon's 36mpx can't beat 20mpx medium format in terms of details! The bigger the better. Period.
In the current form, I see mirrorless as toys for consumers who replaced their P&S camera.
I can't stand FB's way of showing the images. LOUSY and drastic compression, reslizing the images for 1px so nothing is as sharp as it should be, etc.
So I ended up uploading 800px photographs to FB. They look good now but sometimes they suffer terrible compression. I don't know the reason why.
So, no, I think FB's image handling is horrible. Better than it used to be, but FAR from good. And I'm not a fan of their new lateral comments. It ruins the feeling of a photo. The first thing you see is not an image but comments, sponsors and likes. I guess that's what they wanted.
Antonio RS: 1. The response is not calm at all.
2. He makes $50,000 in four months,not bad at all. And,8 months left.
3. I did not know you could add the price of your rent/mortgage, car, car insurance, shoe wear out, etc. that is, living, into "related" costs to justify what you charge. I am going to tell my boss to pay me more because my clothes wear out when in contact with the office chair :-)
4. He was doing so well (or maybe not), and then he ends with "on why we charge $3,000 for one day of your memories that are going to last you forever". And with that proved the bride completely right. Pity, after such long "calm" thought response.
My wedding was photographed by my uncle (he had a decent camera at the time). Now that I pay attention to others wedding pictures, they all look the same (similar type of background, same positions, etc). I saved a ton of money, plus, my pictures may not be the best but for sure are unique and kind of candid. Glad I decided to not hire a "real photographer".
We'd like to see your images so we could enjoy them in the same way you did. No offense, but your comment is typical for people who have zero understanding of photography and what it takes to make it work and look good.
"My wedding was photographed by my uncle (he had a decent camera at the time)."
You said it all with that sentence. Your uncle(!) had a decent camera...
Darn, I'd like to buy a decent camera so I could start taking great pictures!
Finally someone shot London the way it used to be! Without all those petty wheels, eyes, ugly cucumbers...
Great photo but poor title.
Great shot... reminds me of Skyrim (the game). :D
love it!
Well, as a former Olympus DSLR user I can safely say that they deserve to shrivel and fall with their current 4/3 line.
The company made SO many mistakes and missed so many opportunities.
Rriley: has anyone checked to see if this guy wears his underwear on the outside?
"A coalition between mafia and yakuza to take over the bathtub business?" Hahaha!!
Jacuzza definitely got me!!! HAHAHA!!!
OlympusJacuzza bathtubs - a water massage like no other.
maboleth: I totally agree. Especially Microstock. That's a slavery. Initially, they take like 60-70% of the shown price. That's ridiculous. Also, they pretty much thrive on the photographers that work/live in developing countries where assignments aren't on the regular basis or paid well.
Fair enough, I agree what you said dcdigital. My point was only what microstockposts said - there's no regulation in that market right now.
maboleth: I totally agree. Especially Microstock. That's a slavery. Initially, they take like 60-70% of the shown price. That's ridiculous. Also, they pretty much thrive on the photographers that work/live in developing countries where assignments aren't on the regular basis or paid well.
You are right, 80-85% is correct, but that make things even worse. Lets talk about majority of people "working" for microstock. Because those that earn $200K+ are so rare, it's almost like the people that won the lottery. The majority however are struggling to get anything back. The image inspection is uneven and sometimes ridiculous. You are working for the agency that takes 80-85% of already ridiculously low prices. If you want something to sell, well, the production behind you must be on the higher level. From shooting to developing. Yet you don't know IF it's going to sell at all. And lets assume you tried but didn't succeed or you gave up - they pay you when you reach at least $100. That means, if I give up or I'm unable to satisfy the market and earned like 70$, I won't get anything. That means that even those images that I've sold and earned on them just 20%, I WON'T get paid! In the same time, the agency already took 80% of the price. Sorry, this is a slavish business.
I totally agree. Especially Microstock. That's a slavery. Initially, they take like 60-70% of the shown price. That's ridiculous. Also, they pretty much thrive on the photographers that work/live in developing countries where assignments aren't on the regular basis or paid well.
Congratulations, it's a great crop and you managed to capture great moment!
Congratulations, this photo is stunning. The stars really make Stonehenge even more mysterious!