dash2k8: Just as we avoid on-camera-flash if possible, the same applies to video. This is only a last resort, and $135 is too much for a last resort.
Obie lights for eye highlights are one thing. They are used really closeup and are softened. This thing ain't gonna do that ;) It's just going to render a deer-in-headlights look.
Just as we avoid on-camera-flash if possible, the same applies to video. This is only a last resort, and $135 is too much for a last resort.
Dellis12: Time-honored argument...I started in film, shot 2 1/4, 645 along with 35mm as a pro. Switched to digital, went from APS-C to full frame. Got rid of my 5DIIs and 6 L-series lenses several months ago in favor of an OMD-EM1, knowing full well the "limitations" of the sensor and DOF. The reason was simple. I shoot mostly street and pointing a 4-lb black box either freaked out my subjects or enraged them. It's a different era. I've shot some of my best images ever with the Oly. The kit w/4 lenses is about 10 lbs, not 40. And given that I print no larger than 13x19, no image loss whatsoever. Point is that tools are just that. You've got to find a set that either inspires you to better work or makes it easier. Preferably both. Unless you're a pro shooting billboards, all of it is fantastic.
@Yuvalm, so in the end it's not really about being satisfied with a certain level of image quality, but rather a compromise between IQ and weight/size, agreed? The Sony A7 series has shown us that you can get FF in a light-weight package. I think it's even more discrete than the OMD-EM1. Who knows, maybe something even lighter will appear in the future.
mailman88: If you're old enough to remember...the 10D and 20D were used by the professionals. Nobody mentioned Full Frame Now...when I shoot 6400ISO, print 13x19 and sell the print to a customer using my 7D....nobody mentions full frame. Everybody is happy.
So you went through all the trouble to clean it up in post? I applaud the effort! What software do you use? I find the Lightroom function too much like oil painting after a certain point. I admit I know very little about noise reduction outside of LR.
dash2k8: My first reaction was: photography is dead.
Then I thought: this is actually good, because this shows more ppl are taking pictures now then 50 years ago. Sure, many people don't know a thing about shutter/aperture/ISO, but when the general population becomes more involved with an activity, it brings all kinds of improvements.
Look at how running has taken off over the years. This has led to not only better shoes but better sportswear and accessories. So I think it's great more people are taking pictures. More products will be developed. Even though it's for the smartphone sector, the innovation will definitely carry on to larger formats because tech companies are always trying to make money. ;)
I completely agree with you on those points. MY point is, their money will push the market forward in various ways. New innovations will come about because of this and we stand to benefit, correct? I myself would never take serious pictures with smartphones, but I can never disagree with innovation.
I think you're fed up with the flood of low-quality photos all over social media. I absolutely share that feeling. But I choose to ignore it because I'm no one to judge. My parents only want simple photos to remember their vacation in Tahiti, that's their prerogative, even if their faces are completely black against the glorious sunset. ;)
I had the 10D when it first came out, and you're right, no one complained back then. But as the 5D and 1-series came out, there was no going back.
You could produce 13x19 at ISO6400 with the 7D? No one complains about the noise?
Not picking a fight here, but here's a hypothetical question for you: If there was an FF body at the same weight/size, thus making it unobtrusive for street photography, would there be any reason to stay with your current set?
dash2k8: Of course full-frame is the end-point we should all aspire to, otherwise we're not much for aspirations, are we? It's like saying we should only aspire for a cheap sedan because it has a lower maintenance cost than a luxury vehicle. Such a defeatist mentality is selling ourselves short. Had NASA thought this way, we would never have gotten on the moon. The higher we aim, the higher we will go.
Anyone who only ever aspires to an APS-C body is not going to go far in photo (which is fine, since for some ppl, photography is just for fun). However, it's one thing to not be able to afford an FF system, it's another to be complacent and say "this is good ENOUGH." When that word appears, you know corners are cut and goals reduced. We should all aspire to FF bodies and beyond.
To clarify, I have nothing against ppl who shoot for fun. But I do have a problem with the words "good enough."
I don't think the extremely shallow DOF is important at all. But the extra light that a FF sensor can bring in will make the difference in a dark situation. And of course that means better noise control. Surely noise is an important issue!
That's a terrible comparison. Do you honestly disagree that more public awareness is a bad thing? To take your example, more ppl eating fast foods has raised awareness on healthy eating. When ppl eat too much of it, they get sick and go to the doctors and guess what? They learn how to eat healthier! Nowadays there's more common knowledge regarding good and bad eating habits than 50 years ago. How's that a bad thing?
How does more people taking pictures become a bad thing? I agree that most ppl don't know what they're doing, but they ARE pushing the market forward with their dollars. Would you rather have very few ppl taking pictures and the major brands not innovating because it's not worth investing in R&D?
Simply put, what would YOUR solution be? Put all smartphone shooters in concentration camps until they're reformed?
@miike, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or critical. :)
All I'm saying is, I think more people taking pictures (regardless of format) is a good thing to the overall photo scene.
My first reaction was: photography is dead.
I appreciate Nikon taking an active approach instead of the ostrich tactic (hide and pretend all is fine).
I wish I could keep/steal the Hasselblad's that I rent. It's an occasional luxury.
DavinaG: It is funny how many "photographers" focus so much time arguing the technology and so little time capturing the art. The great photographers in history had a fraction of the toolbox we have and still inspire us. The camera used and enjoyed is the best tool for the job.
The key words here being "the best tool for the job." Not the "good enough" tool for the job.
I totally agree it's more about the image than the gear, but without the gear, there's no image. Better gear gets better images faster.
Look at all the premier photographers in the field today. None of them are paying their bills with simplistic equipment. I'm sure they enjoy taking pictures... so long as their equipment don't hinder them but give them the freedom of expression.
rgump12: some of the comments here read like you guys are straight from 1959 middle america or something! "of course ff is the endpoint we should ALL aspire to, etc" ?! Are you serious?? The ignorance, to be saying what you happen to think the whole damn world should want because you Think so! The best part of it is that so many people who say things like this are the most dreary of image makers. After seeing Ray Metzker's half frame camera images of people on the beach, are you going to tell him that he Should aspire to some other type/size/whatever of camera?? Do you think that Kertesz blew it, because he really should have Moved Up to a Rolleiflex instead of one of those little film Leica cameras?? There are many people who might do well to move Up to a pinhole camera from their D800 to really get the kind of image they cannot with the FF Nikon. Is some company paying you to talk like that?? People who think like this Today are an embarrassment.
So it's wrong for me to think this way, but perfectly fine for you to think your way? It cuts both ways. How do you know you're not the ignorant one?
My entire premise is that we should all aspire for something better. You think Ray Metzker wouldn't have preferred a better camera? If he had a 1DX or D4s back in his day, would he have said "bah, me half frame is good enough"? Or Ansel Adams would have totally ignored the current high-end cameras with their superb DR in favor of his old cameras? Adams constantly fiddled with his developing solution because he was looking for "something better" and wasn't complacent.
At the end, I don't understand your anger at my comment. You can disagree, but to call names shows... ignorance. Look at all those exclamation marks and double question marks. They prove you cannot hold a level conversation.
villagranvicent: For a medium format user full frame starts at 6x4.5cm... For a large format user full frame starts at 10x12.5cms, so which one is full frame? Agree with DavinaG, we spend too much time reviewing new gear instead of going out and taking pictures with whatever camera we have. At the end a bad photographer will create bad pictures not matter the camera and the other way around.
Villa's point is true, but the reverse is also true: there comes a time when a good photographer needs a good camera to maximize his skillset. Sure, the best photographers can make great images out of the worst equipment, but it will take them longer to. Why try to chop a tree down with a pair of scissors when a chainsaw will get you there faster?
@guyfawkes, you raise a good point. I think we should all aspire to achieve the image quality of Hasselblads. It's too bad they were too cumbersome back in the days, and now too expensive for many to afford, myself included (can only rent one occasionally). I wish all my pics had medium-format or larger quality.
tabloid: Real world..Personally as a full time professional photographer i would never go back to a SLR….its morrorless all the way for me.
I dont do sports, or fast moving objects….I photograph people.
Just a couple of reasons why mirror less is great : Focusing via the mirror/pentaprtism in a SLR doesn't mean that its in focus on the film/sensor plane.For me a digital SLR (with mirror) can't be used for view-back in bright sunlight.(please don't say put a hood on it).
SLR (with mirror): Constant overheating in video mode.
Ive set my Sony A65 so that when i take a picture, the image stays in my viewfinder for about 4 seconds so that i can see if what I've taken is acceptable, or if the person has blinked. Great for group shots, where one person has always blinked.Can do videos via the viewfinder. Can play back videos and stills via the viewfinder….great stuff.I could go on, but i won't, as people who own mirror less cameras know exactly what I'm talking about.
@karl, I cover weddings and live events, so there you go. ;) The AF just flatout isn't fast enough to keep up. The a7s/metabones combo to me turns it into a full manual camera, which is absolutely fine for landscape/portraits/stuff-that-don't-move, but for anything with motion the keeper rate is too low.
No such issues for video, though, since I use manual focus anyway. Loving the footage taken with the a7s + Shogun!
As for the Nikon thing, the D750 is calling my name because of its supreme noise control. As you know, weddings can get pretty dark and most of the time flash isn't an option, so I need the extra ISO. Got some Nikon lenses from a friend who recently retired so it's a relatively low cost experiment.
To captura, I respectfully disagree with your notion on 'good enough.' There are always going to be shortcomings in any system. You may love your current Sony camera but is the satisfaction 100%? Of course not. It's the desire for something better that pushes makers to keep improving their products. If full frame ever dropped in price and weight and form factor (highly unlikely, but let's just play along), will the APS-C still be good enough?
@Davina, I think sports cars and motorcycles are apples and oranges.
@villagranvicent, I think you get my point. We should aspire to not settle for what we currently have, but what we can have next. It's not so much about dimensions or MPs, it's more about asking for more.
Of course full-frame is the end-point we should all aspire to, otherwise we're not much for aspirations, are we? It's like saying we should only aspire for a cheap sedan because it has a lower maintenance cost than a luxury vehicle. Such a defeatist mentality is selling ourselves short. Had NASA thought this way, we would never have gotten on the moon. The higher we aim, the higher we will go.