Reading mode: Light Dark

Do real pros use the Dimage 7? I think ....

Go to last post
D

Dr. Gonzo

Senior Member
Messages
1,740
Reaction score
0
Location
HI, US
Actually, I am curious to know the answer to this question. This is not intended as some kind of attack (as a certain other message posted in another forum was). I would seriously like to know if pros are using this camera, and for what? My definition of "pro" is much less stringent than I have seen elsewhere: "Pro" = anyone who regularly makes money (print-by-print, hourly or otherwise) off their photography.

This is the first thread I have started in this forum, please be gentle ... ;)

Dr. G.
 
Dr. Gonzo said:
Actually, I am curious to know the answer to this question. This is
not intended as some kind of attack (as a certain other message
posted in another forum was). I would seriously like to know if
pros are using this camera, and for what? My definition of "pro"
is much less stringent than I have seen elsewhere: "Pro" = anyone
who regularly makes money (print-by-print, hourly or otherwise) off
their photography.

This is the first thread I have started in this forum, please be
gentle ... ;)

Dr. G.
Click to expand...
Hi Dr. G

I am a professional. I have a large arsenall of photgraphic gear and staff photographers. I go through both quickly. Last year my company went completely digital with the D1, and then added the D30. I'm currently holding off getting the D1x because I want to see how good the fullframe sensor from Pentax and Contax are going to be. Also I was torn between the D1X and thr DCS780.

Any way getting to your question does/would any pro use the D7.

Depends on their work. At the very least it makes a good back up. I've used the E10 a lot as a back up.

My line of business is mostly web based. I'm a content distributor for adult web sites. I've sent photographers out on assignmemts using the CP950, 990, Oly 2020, 3030, and the 2100. The results were usually verry acceptable. I am not alone. Most of my competitors all are digital now, and most use consumer grade camera's for web content. Believe me, it passes, and pays for itself the first month or the first assignment sometimes!

Occasional I get a client who wants broadband images of the highest quality. I do the shooting with my D30 and professional studio lights. The results are outstanding!

Photojournalists would not use consumer or prosumer cameras. They need the fast AF and high performance of pro cams. They usually have another pro cam they use for back ups.

The E10 does fairly well in studio work but lacks the range of a pro cam, but is still being used as a primary cam or back up. Since the D7 has no sync connector I doubt if too many pros will use it even for a back up.

It's poor battery life also sheds doubt about it's usefulness since pros can shoot 100 shots in 20 minutes.

But it really does depend on the type of work. If I had to deliver large prints I'd have to use a high end pro cam. It's nothing for pros to have 2, 3, or more high end digitals as back ups, so why bother with anything less?

I know one guy who has the D1X and D1H. Carrys both with him in his camera bag. I know another guy who has a D1 and carries the CP990 as a back up.

Now check this out. What do pros use for fun? Prosumer cams and high end consumer cams of course! As much as I love my D1 and D30, if I'm going to the park or a drive, I'd grab my D7, E10, or 990 before I carry a 50 pound camera bag with me. I've been playing around with the D7 in my spare time and must say I like it a lot. It's light, compact, and has a big punch to it. I will no doubt be playing with the F707 when it comes out to.

Take Care!
Jim K
 
You see now that a real pro confirms my statement about the E10 that it is ideal for studio work but its range is just too limited for general outdoors use.

Do not forget that amateurs sometimes have stronger demands for the lens range than pros.
A pro that goes out for an assigment will not be switching lenses a lot.

Het ususally takes 2 or 3 bodies with him and puts lenses on it that are specific for the job to do.

When I am out on a city trip, I may require 28mm at one instance and 200mm the next.
An E10 just can not offer that kind of flexibility.

Even the famous TCON300 leaves you dangling with an extra 2 pounds of glass that takes more than 2 seconds to mount/unmount and gives you with a lens that is ONLY usable at 420mm.
This leaves you with an unacceptably huge gap in the tele range.

Do not forget: you can always crop the image a bit at the cost of resolution but on the other hand, what fell off the original can never be recovered.

With my 5MP D7 I can still crop an image to 230mm equivalent and retain the same number of pixels as the E10 which is left behind at 140mm
I can go fluently to 28mm leaving the E10 behind at 35.

Being an ideal studio camera is ok but then I am not willing to pay the extra dough for robustness at all, what can happen to it in the studio anyway.

Besides, robustness is too much overrated for cameras with fixed lenses, the lens is always the most fragile part of a camera, not the body.

Real SLRs are different, if you would put a 2.8 80-200 lens on an eos 300 and carry it arount for a week, the lens mount will fall off.
There you really need a strong body frame with a firm lens mount.
For fixed lens cameras this is much more academic.
 
Dr G,

Please don't forget real pros don't jump to new cameras like most consumers. They have already had a system that is working nicely for them. They have to be able to see a really good reason to change camera or even film. You have no idea how much work that involves in just changing films. The D7 has just showed up for a few weeks, I don't think there are too many real pros are using D7 NOW.

Will they use D7 (or any prosumer digital cameras) later? That is all depends on the type of photogaphy they do for a living. If theirs are like Jim's business which is mainly web based, yes, they will use D7 which is better than other 2-3 MP cameras. If they are still doing film photography with their MF cameras, the chance of changing to D7 or any digital camera is pretty slim, at least for the next few years. They are better off to get the new generation of film scanne, continue to use their film cameras and avoid the major expenses of buying new camera equipment, even though they may accept the quality of the digital images. I know that the image of D7 is good enough for portrait photography, as the noise issue is quite minimal under control studio lighting environment. We have done studio test with couple old pros and get the green light about the quality. But, let me tell you that it is not easy to tell them to start from ground up again like everybody.
Jim K said:
Dr. Gonzo said:
Jim K said:
My line of business is mostly web based. I'm a content distributor
for adult web sites.
Click to expand...
Jim --

Just one question. Are you hiring? ;)

Dr G.
Click to expand...
That depends.... do you have any modeling experience???
Click to expand...
 
And this is on-topic...in what way?
jp said:
You see now that a real pro confirms my statement about the E10
that it is ideal for studio work but its range is just too limited
for general outdoors use.
Do not forget that amateurs sometimes have stronger demands for the
lens range than pros.
A pro that goes out for an assigment will not be switching lenses a
lot.
Het ususally takes 2 or 3 bodies with him and puts lenses on it
that are specific for the job to do.
When I am out on a city trip, I may require 28mm at one instance
and 200mm the next.
An E10 just can not offer that kind of flexibility.
Even the famous TCON300 leaves you dangling with an extra 2 pounds
of glass that takes more than 2 seconds to mount/unmount and gives
you with a lens that is ONLY usable at 420mm.
This leaves you with an unacceptably huge gap in the tele range.
Do not forget: you can always crop the image a bit at the cost of
resolution but on the other hand, what fell off the original can
never be recovered.
With my 5MP D7 I can still crop an image to 230mm equivalent and
retain the same number of pixels as the E10 which is left behind at
140mm
I can go fluently to 28mm leaving the E10 behind at 35.

Being an ideal studio camera is ok but then I am not willing to pay
the extra dough for robustness at all, what can happen to it in the
studio anyway.
Besides, robustness is too much overrated for cameras with fixed
lenses, the lens is always the most fragile part of a camera, not
the body.
Real SLRs are different, if you would put a 2.8 80-200 lens on an
eos 300 and carry it arount for a week, the lens mount will fall
off.
There you really need a strong body frame with a firm lens mount.
For fixed lens cameras this is much more academic.
Click to expand...
 
Anyway, you missed what Jim K said entirely. He said "The E10 does fairly well in studio work but lacks the range of a pro cam"

He did not say "lacks the range of the D7" -- in fact, what he means by range and what you mean by range are, I'm pretty sure, not the same thing. To me range means the range of photographic possibilities, and I'm pretty sure that's what Jim K meant too. And since you brought up the E-10, I think the E-10 has more range than the D7.

And don't forget to take into account actual lens resolving capacity when calculating just how many pixels are equivalent to how many in another system. I'd be willing to bet that if you cropped a D7 image down to the size of an E-10 image, you wouldn't find as much detail in it.

Dr. G.
jp said:
You see now that a real pro confirms my statement about the E10
that it is ideal for studio work but its range is just too limited
for general outdoors use.
Do not forget that amateurs sometimes have stronger demands for the
lens range than pros.
A pro that goes out for an assigment will not be switching lenses a
lot.
Het ususally takes 2 or 3 bodies with him and puts lenses on it
that are specific for the job to do.
When I am out on a city trip, I may require 28mm at one instance
and 200mm the next.
An E10 just can not offer that kind of flexibility.
Even the famous TCON300 leaves you dangling with an extra 2 pounds
of glass that takes more than 2 seconds to mount/unmount and gives
you with a lens that is ONLY usable at 420mm.
This leaves you with an unacceptably huge gap in the tele range.
Do not forget: you can always crop the image a bit at the cost of
resolution but on the other hand, what fell off the original can
never be recovered.
With my 5MP D7 I can still crop an image to 230mm equivalent and
retain the same number of pixels as the E10 which is left behind at
140mm
I can go fluently to 28mm leaving the E10 behind at 35.

Being an ideal studio camera is ok but then I am not willing to pay
the extra dough for robustness at all, what can happen to it in the
studio anyway.
Besides, robustness is too much overrated for cameras with fixed
lenses, the lens is always the most fragile part of a camera, not
the body.
Real SLRs are different, if you would put a 2.8 80-200 lens on an
eos 300 and carry it arount for a week, the lens mount will fall
off.
There you really need a strong body frame with a firm lens mount.
For fixed lens cameras this is much more academic.
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Gonzo said:
And this is on-topic...in what way?
Click to expand...
Well it is obvious that you slightly changed your strategy from promoting the E10's "would be" superiority to trying to provoke negative evaluations of the D7.
Secondly I was not the one that mentioned the E10 first, but Mr Jim K did.

So I thought it was a good opportunity to do what you always do, grab the chance to start talking about the E10 again.
If you can do that, why can't others?
 
Please note in your response, as Jim has, whether the pro in question uses the camera in a professional or recreational capacity.
Dr. Gonzo said:
Actually, I am curious to know the answer to this question. This is
not intended as some kind of attack (as a certain other message
posted in another forum was). I would seriously like to know if
pros are using this camera, and for what? My definition of "pro"
is much less stringent than I have seen elsewhere: "Pro" = anyone
who regularly makes money (print-by-print, hourly or otherwise) off
their photography.

This is the first thread I have started in this forum, please be
gentle ... ;)

Dr. G.
Click to expand...
 
it certainly doesn't like my MK II 1 GB Microdrive (it won't turn on properly and goes into endless loops).
My recommendation? Don't try to use an IBM Microdrive in an E-10

I personally found the (E10) auto focus to be okay, nothing earth shattering

The size and round shape of the (E10) eyepiece often leads to visual vignetting at you find yourself "dodging" the camera left, right, up and down to get the viewfinder view just right.

There doesn't seem to be a particularly well defined focusing screen, I found my eye focusing THROUGH the lens rather than at the point where the camera was focused.
there seems to be some distortion of the image into the viewfinder

We measured the (E10) rear LCD as being 94% accurate
The DiMAGE 7's LCD provides a 100% frame view. Kudos for that.

We measured the (E10) viewfinder as being 92% accurate
the DiMAGE 7's electronic viewfinder provided a 100% frame view

MAJOR disappointments with the E-10's LCD are:

Poor resolution of the live preview image...because of the low resolution of the live preview image it's just a blocky mess
Secondly is the badly designed information overlay "status bar".

Lack of immediate histogram display in record (image review) and on top of that Histogram display in play mode is slow

Fastest shutter speed of 1/640 sec (problematic for Shallow DOF in bright circumstances)

Slow startup times (E10 5.4 D7 5.6)

and also very important the AF is not so good as some would like to believe:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1024&message=1436394
 
This is very dissappointing jp. Gonzo actually did have a good interesting post there. Don't do the same things Gonzo has done in the past.

Joo
jp said:
jp52637 said:
And this is on-topic...in what way?
Click to expand...
Well it is obvious that you slightly changed your strategy from
promoting the E10's "would be" superiority to trying to provoke
negative evaluations of the D7.
Secondly I was not the one that mentioned the E10 first, but Mr
Jim K did.

So I thought it was a good opportunity to do what you always do,
grab the chance to start talking about the E10 again.
If you can do that, why can't others?
Click to expand...
 
Or it could be that he's refering to the dynamic range. I think none of us should be putting words into JimK's mouth - or email.

DaveR
Dr. Gonzo said:
He did not say "lacks the range of the D7" -- in fact, what he
means by range and what you mean by range are, I'm pretty sure, not
the same thing. To me range means the range of photographic
possibilities, and I'm pretty sure that's what Jim K meant too. And
since you brought up the E-10, I think the E-10 has more range than
the D7.

And don't forget to take into account actual lens resolving
capacity when calculating just how many pixels are equivalent to
how many in another system. I'd be willing to bet that if you
cropped a D7 image down to the size of an E-10 image, you wouldn't
find as much detail in it.

Dr. G.
jp said:
You see now that a real pro confirms my statement about the E10
that it is ideal for studio work but its range is just too limited
for general outdoors use.
Do not forget that amateurs sometimes have stronger demands for the
lens range than pros.
A pro that goes out for an assigment will not be switching lenses a
lot.
Het ususally takes 2 or 3 bodies with him and puts lenses on it
that are specific for the job to do.
When I am out on a city trip, I may require 28mm at one instance
and 200mm the next.
An E10 just can not offer that kind of flexibility.
Even the famous TCON300 leaves you dangling with an extra 2 pounds
of glass that takes more than 2 seconds to mount/unmount and gives
you with a lens that is ONLY usable at 420mm.
This leaves you with an unacceptably huge gap in the tele range.
Do not forget: you can always crop the image a bit at the cost of
resolution but on the other hand, what fell off the original can
never be recovered.
With my 5MP D7 I can still crop an image to 230mm equivalent and
retain the same number of pixels as the E10 which is left behind at
140mm
I can go fluently to 28mm leaving the E10 behind at 35.

Being an ideal studio camera is ok but then I am not willing to pay
the extra dough for robustness at all, what can happen to it in the
studio anyway.
Besides, robustness is too much overrated for cameras with fixed
lenses, the lens is always the most fragile part of a camera, not
the body.
Real SLRs are different, if you would put a 2.8 80-200 lens on an
eos 300 and carry it arount for a week, the lens mount will fall
off.
There you really need a strong body frame with a firm lens mount.
For fixed lens cameras this is much more academic.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Ok Doc, your posts really make me smile 7 out of 10 times so I'm gonna play Dr's advocate here...

As I was reading the Oly SLR forum earlier today, I read this post http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&page=1&message=1433116 where Zach Arias said "Looking at that New Sony and after getting my hands on a D7, I can say that the E-10 is a better camera. It's more like a real camera than an art school student design course camera like the Sony or the D7."

To me that sounds about right, the d7 is a camera for an artist who wants the freedom to create images that reflect their vision. The strength of the camera is in its flexibility. It isn't a workhorse camera that you sling over your shoulder and charge up a shear rock face with. its a camera that you tuck away in a pouch until you reach the part of the cliff your headed for, then you pull it out, you think about what you are trying to capture, you take a minute to make sure that your vision and the cameras vision are in tune, and you take the picture that you want.

The sony f707 in the same situation will give you a beautiful picture, it just might not be the one that you want.

A D30 or a D1x will give you a picture as good as your vision or even better if you let it.

In terms of build quality, all of the cameras will hold up fine, however you would treat the minolta or the sony as if they are expensive pieces of electrical equipment. If you beat on them and they keep working you say man this is really well built. However if you beat on them and they break you blame yourself.

The e-10, the d1x, and the d30 are yours to abuse and pound in tent spikes if you wish. If you breakone of them you can get all up in arms about it. They make them heavy so you know this.

Again back to the pros, if my livelyhood depended on the camera, I wouldn't be an early adopter. As noted by Stephen earlier in this thread, Its a really big deal for a successful photographer to change anything about the way that they work.

I'd feel a lot more comfortable doing it, knowing that there were already a couple of hundred photographers successfully making their livelyhood off the same camera. Hence the E-10 is a choice camera among dozens of professionals, because there are applications where it has been proven to work well.

Also the focus on the D7 is slow, not dreadfully so, but noticeably so. Leaving my eos at home since I got the D7 a few weeks ago I'm really aware of the difference, but at the same time, I still feel comfortable going forward, its just going to take some adaptation of my technique. If I had relied a lot on continuous autofocus previously, that would be a really significant change to swallow. I'm still learning how to use it in different situations.

No doubt there will be professional applications to which the camera is very well suited, however I suspect that in a case like this a professional might shell out the money for the camera, as an experiment, and try using both systems for a while, to see how and if the D7 could work, before changing anything about his or her routine. If the professional really wanted to go digital and was sure of it, they would wait until the could afford something proven, a D1x, Eos D30, 1v...

An art school student, someone who knows a lot about photography, someone who knows a lot about digital image manipulation, someone who is ready to dive in and learn all about photography and anyone who just wants the freedom to experiment a lot, this is the market where the D7 lies at this point. I photograph as an exercise in composition. I do a fair amount of freelance performance photography, I experiment a lot, I've sold some art prints. However I don't rely on my photography to live. If I did, I probably wouldn't have just gotten a D7.

Anyway, thats where I see the camera now.

yrs
kirk
Dr. Gonzo said:
Actually, I am curious to know the answer to this question. This is
not intended as some kind of attack (as a certain other message
posted in another forum was). I would seriously like to know if
pros are using this camera, and for what? My definition of "pro"
is much less stringent than I have seen elsewhere: "Pro" = anyone
who regularly makes money (print-by-print, hourly or otherwise) off
their photography.

This is the first thread I have started in this forum, please be
gentle ... ;)

Dr. G.
Click to expand...
 
Quite eloquent.

Only one quibble ... the interpretation of what ZA said. If I am not mistaken, he meant "It's more like a real camera than [the result of] an art school design course camera like the Sony or the D7" rather than "It's more like a real camera than [one suitable for] an art school design course [when that course requires a] camera like the Sony or the D7."

In other words, I believe he meant "the D7 was designed by art students," rather than "the D7 is an artist's camera." And by this, he implies that art students wouldn't know how to design a "real" camera suitable for "real" work.

Your response is valuable, though, either way. Thank you for posting it.
simpatico said:
Ok Doc, your posts really make me smile 7 out of 10 times so I'm
gonna play Dr's advocate here...

As I was reading the Oly SLR forum earlier today, I read this post

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&page=1&message=1433116 where Zach Arias said "Looking at that New Sony and after getting my hands on a D7, I can say that the E-10 is a better camera. It's more like a real camera than an art school student design course camera like the Sony or the D7."

To me that sounds about right, the d7 is a camera for an artist who
wants the freedom to create images that reflect their vision. The
strength of the camera is in its flexibility. It isn't a workhorse
camera that you sling over your shoulder and charge up a shear rock
face with. its a camera that you tuck away in a pouch until you
reach the part of the cliff your headed for, then you pull it out,
you think about what you are trying to capture, you take a minute
to make sure that your vision and the cameras vision are in tune,
and you take the picture that you want.

The sony f707 in the same situation will give you a beautiful
picture, it just might not be the one that you want.

A D30 or a D1x will give you a picture as good as your vision or
even better if you let it.

In terms of build quality, all of the cameras will hold up fine,
however you would treat the minolta or the sony as if they are
expensive pieces of electrical equipment. If you beat on them and
they keep working you say man this is really well built. However
if you beat on them and they break you blame yourself.

The e-10, the d1x, and the d30 are yours to abuse and pound in tent
spikes if you wish. If you breakone of them you can get all up in
arms about it. They make them heavy so you know this.

Again back to the pros, if my livelyhood depended on the camera, I
wouldn't be an early adopter. As noted by Stephen earlier in this
thread, Its a really big deal for a successful photographer to
change anything about the way that they work.

I'd feel a lot more comfortable doing it, knowing that there were
already a couple of hundred photographers successfully making their
livelyhood off the same camera. Hence the E-10 is a choice camera
among dozens of professionals, because there are applications where
it has been proven to work well.

Also the focus on the D7 is slow, not dreadfully so, but noticeably
so. Leaving my eos at home since I got the D7 a few weeks ago I'm
really aware of the difference, but at the same time, I still feel
comfortable going forward, its just going to take some adaptation
of my technique. If I had relied a lot on continuous autofocus
previously, that would be a really significant change to swallow.
I'm still learning how to use it in different situations.

No doubt there will be professional applications to which the
camera is very well suited, however I suspect that in a case like
this a professional might shell out the money for the camera, as an
experiment, and try using both systems for a while, to see how and
if the D7 could work, before changing anything about his or her
routine. If the professional really wanted to go digital and was
sure of it, they would wait until the could afford something
proven, a D1x, Eos D30, 1v...

An art school student, someone who knows a lot about photography,
someone who knows a lot about digital image manipulation, someone
who is ready to dive in and learn all about photography and anyone
who just wants the freedom to experiment a lot, this is the market
where the D7 lies at this point. I photograph as an exercise in
composition. I do a fair amount of freelance performance
photography, I experiment a lot, I've sold some art prints.
However I don't rely on my photography to live. If I did, I
probably wouldn't have just gotten a D7.

Anyway, thats where I see the camera now.

yrs
kirk
Click to expand...
 
What forum exactly and what attack was that?

And why did we suffer that attack as the attacker blamed YOU Dr. Gonzo for starting it.

First post eh??

You've already been described to me as the resident Minolta troll - I have to believe the people of the Minolta forum as to it's correctness.

From now On Dr. Gonzo I am treating ALL YOUR POSTINGS as trolls and will alert as such.
Dr. Gonzo said:
Actually, I am curious to know the answer to this question. This is
not intended as some kind of attack (as a certain other message
posted in another forum was). I would seriously like to know if
pros are using this camera, and for what? My definition of "pro"
is much less stringent than I have seen elsewhere: "Pro" = anyone
who regularly makes money (print-by-print, hourly or otherwise) off
their photography.

This is the first thread I have started in this forum, please be
gentle ... ;)

Dr. G.
Click to expand...
 
Sure thing, Ger, see how far that get ya.
Ger Bee said:
What forum exactly and what attack was that?

And why did we suffer that attack as the attacker blamed YOU Dr.
Gonzo for starting it.

First post eh??

You've already been described to me as the resident Minolta troll -
I have to believe the people of the Minolta forum as to it's
correctness.

From now On Dr. Gonzo I am treating ALL YOUR POSTINGS as trolls and
will alert as such.
Click to expand...
 
The good doctor is biased, masochistic, funny sometimes insightful, sometimes fair, and far more entertaining than your average troll. I think in this instance he really just wants to know if there are pros using the D7 and why or why not. its hardly an attack, but you can choose to ignore the thread if you wish.

kirk
Dr. Gonzo said:
Ger Bee said:
What forum exactly and what attack was that?

And why did we suffer that attack as the attacker blamed YOU Dr.
Gonzo for starting it.

First post eh??

You've already been described to me as the resident Minolta troll -
I have to believe the people of the Minolta forum as to it's
correctness.

From now On Dr. Gonzo I am treating ALL YOUR POSTINGS as trolls and
will alert as such.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Joo said:
This is very dissappointing jp. Gonzo actually did have a good
interesting post there. Don't do the same things Gonzo has done in
the past.
Click to expand...
You are probably right, sorry that I disappointed you.

IF Dr Gonzo really meant it well then I appologize to him and to you, but to me it seemed to me that he only started this thread as a subtle revenge for this one:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=1436588

I am pretty sure that no self-respecting professional would use a D7 (or an E10) for a living. That is so clear to me that when someone starts a thread like this, it already makes me suspicious.

On the other hand, Dr Gonzo always claims that the E10 is a professional camrera by summing up features that are important to a professional.

He only does this because that would be the only thing that would clearly set it apart from a D7 or 707.

What he never wants to hear howevver is that the E10 has several shortcomings that makes it unusable as a REAL pro tool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top