ecube

ecube

Lives in Morocco Morocco
Works as a Retired
Joined on Nov 22, 2005
About me:

Occasional visits (DPR) to salivate on Gears I will never buy
Amuse myself on forums where everybody present themselves as experts.

Comments

Total: 205, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1172 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecube: What differentiate a "Professional grade" from an "Enthusiast grade" camera?
As I recall, The National Geographics Magazine use the Nikon D1 or perhaps the D2X for the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird article in 2004 or 2005. The D2X had a whopping 12.4 mega-pixel. At that time, the D2X was considered one of the two top of the line Professional DSLR Cameras.

Comparing the specs of D2X and D750, it seems to me that D750 has much more advance features and certainly better IQ than the D2X. The D2X has a DX sensor and DX lenses while the D750 has Full Frame 24+ mega pixel sensor and uses FX lenses. Dynamic range, ISO sensitivity, wider shutter speed ranges, etc. That said, why does DPReview label D750 a mere enthusiasts camera when it clearly far better than the Professional Grade D2X?

I used to make (design and machine) adaptors to fit lenses made by one manufacturer to body made by another manufacturer. I used to repair cameras (Leica, Canon, Nikon, Praktica, Rollie, etc.) When Nikon F (the original film camera) was at the top of the heap in the early 60, I have that "professional" camera plus the original Asahi Pentax and the Minolta SRT-101, both not considered a "professional camera".

Being paid to cover events was 40+ year history for me. During those times, I used to carry a spare body and / or a spare camera.
I have used my Nikon D5100 in the hot and humid jungles of Amazon, Galapagos, sub-terrainian river in Palawan, the extreme cold of The Artic. With close to 100,000 clicks, it is still "clicking"

Unless you are a war correspondent / photo-journalist, it seems to me that the hype about "pro-camera" designation is getting out of hand.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 27, 2014 at 22:34 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1172 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wahrsager: I’m sure this issue will be resolved just like the Canon’s 5DIII “light leak issue” and the “red dot flare issue” that some of the hot, rapidly developed mirrorless cameras have suffered.

There seems to be a parallel trend in the auto and camera industries lately: Tremendous pressure to develop a best-in-class feature set at a sustainable price in a very slim time frame with subsequent slips in product perfection.

Like my earlier metaphor for the D750- That it’s the “Honda Accord” of cameras- Not perfect or the best at everything, but probably the most well-rounded vehicle for most people. Well the Honda Accord too has a bevy of minor difficulties (Technical service bulletins) that you may never be aware of yet it’ll remain the best in its segment.

@Wahrsager - I am amused and delighted with your Honda metaphor. In my 56 years in photography, I have had shares of flares and other annoying imperfections. I had it with Leica, Asahi, Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Rollie, Contaflex . . . generally when I use filter. I noticed that flares are lens generated and gets pronounced by filters. I use Star Filter to create what is essentially flares.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 27, 2014 at 21:53 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1172 comments in total)

What differentiate a "Professional grade" from an "Enthusiast grade" camera?
As I recall, The National Geographics Magazine use the Nikon D1 or perhaps the D2X for the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird article in 2004 or 2005. The D2X had a whopping 12.4 mega-pixel. At that time, the D2X was considered one of the two top of the line Professional DSLR Cameras.

Comparing the specs of D2X and D750, it seems to me that D750 has much more advance features and certainly better IQ than the D2X. The D2X has a DX sensor and DX lenses while the D750 has Full Frame 24+ mega pixel sensor and uses FX lenses. Dynamic range, ISO sensitivity, wider shutter speed ranges, etc. That said, why does DPReview label D750 a mere enthusiasts camera when it clearly far better than the Professional Grade D2X?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 26, 2014 at 21:02 UTC as 43rd comment | 6 replies
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1172 comments in total)

picky picky picky . . .

I'm lucky that the local Nikon dealer allows me to test the camera.
While my test is NOT extensive, I experienced what this camera can do.
Since I shot D800, there is no problem with the learning curve .

Very impressive!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 26, 2014 at 16:22 UTC as 44th comment
On High-end full frame roundup (2014) article (541 comments in total)
In reply to:

WayneHuangPhoto: I'm seriously considering selling all my Canon lenses and my old 5D mkI to finance the purchase of a D750 and one really good super wide angle lens. What do you all think?

@Wanehuang - I am ignorant about the Canon products you have. I imagine you bought the camera and lenses because you were convince it meets your need. What has changed that made you consider switching to Nikon D750?

I am a die-hard Nikon user since 1960. I have had the top of the line film cameras from Canon and Nikon used by Time-Life photographers in the 1960s and 1970s. Currently, I used Nikon D5100 as my everyday carry-on camera and the D800 for serious photography. I seriously considered the D750 to replace the D5100 as my carry-on camera but held-off due to the missing built-in GPS.

Your post suggest that it is not financially easy for you switch from Canon to Nikon. I'm aware how odd it is that I seem to be discouraging you to switch to Nikon although I am a Nikon user.
Unless you are not getting the results you expect from your current Canon body and lenses, I suggest you make a matrix of the features / criteria important to you. Use that side-by-side comparison.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 24, 2014 at 22:48 UTC

I have Nikon D800 & D5100 and compliment of respective lenses (primes and zooms) and am considering an everyday camera to replace my D5100.

I am NOT impressed by the Nikon offering outside the FX system, hence, am considering either the Oly and Lumix. I am not concern about the lens or system compatibility with Nikon. Money is not a problem.

Looks like this X-T1 deserves a serious consideration alone with Oly and Lumix.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2014 at 17:29 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

jkoch2: I buy your photo for $4 million. Then you buy mine for $5 million. Then we swap our photos with "private investor" for $12 million, also on credit, to exhibit the photos in a gallery. Meanwhile, on the side, handsome properties exchange hands for lowball prices, and assessments get reduced. The IOUs cancel out. Net cash exchanged? Very little. Then auction day comes, and bidders get excited about the excellent investment returns and bid eight figure sums. Oh, and will the seller accept a small security deposit, with the balance covered (on paper) by title to a sand dune and (why need the IRS know?) an indemnity secured by an Curaçao fund with an account in Vaduz.

Real money eventually comes into the equation, but the smart money does not get stuck in the art itself. The photo may end up hanging in a museum, for all to see for free or a small fee, but the precedent does boost opportunities for royalties and sales.

Not a market for ordinary folks.

correction: Aristotle Contemplating on the Bust of Plato.
No, I did not do that on purpose, beats the hell why I type Socrates

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 18:38 UTC
In reply to:

mogodore: I'm with tt321. A lot of what I'm hearing here is HUGE bunches of sour grapes. No one held a gun to anyone's head and forced them to bid. And to those who would pay peanuts for a big print ... someone's outbid you already. To those who would accept far less ... you're going to say "No Thanks" if "some idiot" is willing to throw $millions at you for a print???? GROW UP!!!

I am with you . . . I have said more than enough sanctioning the sour grapes.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 22:57 UTC
In reply to:

Daniel L: So sad people paying this much for a photo that anyone with decent photography knowledge can produce for as long as they willing to pay entrance fee and guide to Antelope Canyon... and you can tell and tip the guide more by telling him, hey, can you throw more sand, "i need more smoke!"
I seen Antelope Canyon images 10 times better than and don't care much for it.

How about posting your shots of the subject to give us the treat of your talent.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 22:56 UTC
In reply to:

Odyssey: A fool and his money are soon parted...

Somehow, I think the "fool" who bought it is smart enough to accumulate $millions, if not $billions.

I would not label "fool" anybody who has that kind of money.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 22:54 UTC
In reply to:

buginarug: It is fine photograph but it bewilders me how something that someone could make infinite signed copies of is worth this kind of money. Moonrise Hernandez by Ansel Adams, is certainly a much better photograph by a deceased photographer, who can't sign any more copies then that exist today, does not fetch this kind of money. I want this photographers representative. It can't be about the photograph as much as it is about the way it s promoted.

This is a FREE country. No one is stopping you from taking the same photo or any photo for that matter and from you selling your master piece(s) to any deep pocketed art collector.

Good luck

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 22:51 UTC
In reply to:

justinwonnacott: If the collector is anonymous,well it is just Peter Lik's say so and his valuation of the worth of the sale. Hmmm if I Peter Lik was asked what this was really worth he might say ...... You get the idea - no art appraisal or auction house involved. Hell twenty million is not inconceivable eh?

The monetary value of any object is only the amount ANYONE is willing to pay for that object. Each of us have different taste.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 22:40 UTC
In reply to:

ag80: I'm not judging if price is right. But the value of this photo is not about canyon which has already been photographed many times, but about the genuine moment. It's a unique moment in time when dust formed a shape of a 'phantom' in the ray of light. Do other photos that were claimed to be the same have that? Can you repeat that easily by just driving there and sitting all day waiting for the 'right light'? Nope.
What makes it art too is the ability of author to recognize a strange play of light quickly and press the button. It may also be random and could be discovered later, but that doesn't make it any worse. Somehow good 'random' photos happen to good photographers a lot more often.
So if you bring that shadow of a phantom in any less picturesque surrounding or convert to color back it would still be interesting and unique by itself.

AMEN !
I wish I have that rare gift and fortunate to have an opportunity to be at the right place at the right time, have the camera ready, and most important of all, the gift to recognize that "rare" instant in time.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 22:36 UTC
In reply to:

ecube: I wonder if the original negative / electronic file changed hands, thus, ownership is now exclusive to the buyer.

I do!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 22:30 UTC
In reply to:

daddyo: I think it's a very unique photograph, and is very visually compelling.

I also think there is a moral question regarding anyone paying $6.5 million for a photograph when there are untold aids orphans in Africa dying for want of food, water, and basic medical care.

That said, the photographer and the buyer may both be very charitable people -- they won't have to answer to me. :-)

I am dumbfounded? What is the connection between the artist and the art collector money to the hungry and dying orphans in Africa? What do you know about the artist and the art collector. As you stated, they maybe charitable people but even if they are not, what is your point. As far as NOT answering to you, are you implying the YOUR God will punish those two?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 22:29 UTC
In reply to:

justinwonnacott: A framed example of the original image in colour before conversion to an artistic black and white print can be seen here in Aspen may be seen here.
http://www.lik.com/galleries/aspen.html. Tasteful eh ....

What is your opinion of which one is original?
Any idea of who should own that "original color"

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 22:21 UTC
In reply to:

jkoch2: I buy your photo for $4 million. Then you buy mine for $5 million. Then we swap our photos with "private investor" for $12 million, also on credit, to exhibit the photos in a gallery. Meanwhile, on the side, handsome properties exchange hands for lowball prices, and assessments get reduced. The IOUs cancel out. Net cash exchanged? Very little. Then auction day comes, and bidders get excited about the excellent investment returns and bid eight figure sums. Oh, and will the seller accept a small security deposit, with the balance covered (on paper) by title to a sand dune and (why need the IRS know?) an indemnity secured by an Curaçao fund with an account in Vaduz.

Real money eventually comes into the equation, but the smart money does not get stuck in the art itself. The photo may end up hanging in a museum, for all to see for free or a small fee, but the precedent does boost opportunities for royalties and sales.

Not a market for ordinary folks.

And so was the Mona Lisa.
The Last Supper
The "Aristotle contemplating on the Bust of Socrates"
The Madonna
and on and on and on.

I don't have the money to even dream of buying any of these high price work of art but I am not jealous. Are you?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 22:19 UTC
In reply to:

Daniel L: There's nothing special about pay to get in, pay to get more "ray of light" and pay more to do more, again and again photo.... especially on a scene that never changed - That's Antelope Canyon for people that never been there before. Everyone has to pay to get the picture, you just have to go at the right time of the year.

Nothing more than joining a photograph-tour shooting on a rare captive snow leopard in a zoo.

your point is?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 22:15 UTC

I wonder if the original negative / electronic file changed hands, thus, ownership is now exclusive to the buyer.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 22:14 UTC as 148th comment | 4 replies
On Nikon D750 First-impressions review preview (1422 comments in total)
In reply to:

GreenMountainGirl: The D800 was recently bumped from my wish list by the D810. Now the D750 has surfaced! (I currently own a D7000). I love the review, it sounds like a great camera, but still have to figure out if it good enough to choose it over the D810. The $1000.00 price differential is one thing - easier on the budget. So, if anyone can explain to me whether the D810 is worth the difference on the basis of what it can do, or if the D750 trumps it! Thanks.

Susan (cont) - I always take time to learn any equipment I buy be it computer, tablet, mobile phone . . . and definitely cameras and flashes. I assume you do too. That said, I am sure you will appreciate the features of the D800/810 that empowers the user to do things that is almost impossible with other camera. In my opinion, your imagination is the only limit to what you can accomplish with the D800/810.

While I am extremely pleased with my D800, the built-in SCENES, articulated display, and the WiFi built into the D750 makes it a very attractive everyday camera. I WILL get the next iteration if it comes with the GPS.

BTW, there is a website dedicated to Nikon. "NIKONIAN.com" It has a free "teaser" membership but to get the most from it requires membership dues. after reading review of several Nikon cameras . . . I feel the reviews were highly biased.

Nikonworld is FREE.

I posted some shots in MY GALLERY. The last post were series of sunset in Bar Harbor, Maine.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 20:35 UTC
Total: 205, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »