Reading mode: Light Dark

Shocked!

Go to last post
adrian26 said:
Probably you are right, but 50 D was not an option at the time of
buying 30D, not even the 40D , since that camera become available
AFTER my purchase.
Click to expand...
Wasn't talking about options at the time you bought the 30D but options for overcoming the situation that was described in the first post.
 
CM_laptop wrote:
Ive been shooting with :

nikon D100
kodak 14n
Nikon D70
canon 10D
canon 20D (2 bodies)
canon 30D (2 bodies)
canon 40D
canon 1Ds (2 bodies)
canon 1Ds Mark II

and soon a sony a900

you were saying?
 
Thanks, but I don't think you need to police the forum. I'm more than capable of determining the merit of CM_laptop's assertions, as I'm sure most forum users are. What's more, CM_Laptop and I both have managed to remain civil in our discourse even as we've disagreed staunchly. Of course, you're free to interject your own opinion/experience, but what do you hope to gain from badgering? Other than making yourself look like a kid in search of a fight, that is? Take the high road, man: state your case and let it rest. Any sensible person takes what he/she reads on these types of forum for what it is by and large: unsubstantiated, often hyperbolic opinion.
cityphotographer said:
CM_laptop said:
Maybe 'cos I have extensive expereince in processing raw files from
both series of cams in C1, ACR, Rawshooter & even RawTherapee;
Click to expand...
extensive? and still you don't get it right
cityphotographer said:
I'm talking from experience with the cams, prints in hand; from the
D40/50 as well as the 20/30D (not D80)
Click to expand...
not D80? only D40/D50 and 20D/30D

really?

and ... who cares?

take a look at the forum where you're posting this experience of yours.

done that?

good: it's the 1series/5D canon forum

which means that you are posting in the wrong forum. again try the
appropriate forum and in any case work a little more on your
experience on the 20D and D40 because you're doing it wrong

in any case nobody really cares about it

;
cityphotographer said:
finding shadow detail more fragile with the Canons; which is very
visible in print.
Click to expand...
prints out of a D40 are good, because of the colors (well saturated)
and the limited resolution : but you should print 4x6 only.

again I personally couldn't care less about the 4x6 of the D40
cityphotographer said:
I'm not interested in theories espoused by forums or websites which
very often are very far from reality; but true real-life experience
in pro work.
Click to expand...
ditto: I'm not interested about the 4x6 out of cheap cameras as well

are you a pro? and you only print 4x6? how so?

bottom line you are telling stories and your experience is limited.
and it shows.

P.S. : look: there are photographers in here : you can't spread this
kind of limited "experience" and get away with it like you are the
only one printing 4x6
Click to expand...
--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com
 
adrian26 said:
In therms of ceremony, they are pretty similar. But, when comes to
light there is a huge difference between churches in Russia and those
in Romania. At 7 PM there is no question about day lighting, in a
church with only a few windows, covered with dark paintings. You
might notice that the smoked paintings on the walls (that make walls
to be almost dark) prevent also the light to be reflected back from
the walls. Is dark inside, next time I am going to take a Sekonic
light meter with me to tell you how dark it is...
Click to expand...
Do the priest in Romania Orthodox church need to read anything when conducting the ceremonies such as wedding? At least I myself have huge difficulties to read much earlier than significant difficulties to get photos when the light get dimmer (fast sport excluded as there I need such very short exposure times). I just try to understand how dark places we are now talking.
 
Your range of RAW converters is revelatory as I don't care for the results from any of them (assuming its C13.7.x you're referring to). I can only surmise we have very different ideas of what constitutes a great RAW conversion, so it's understandable we'd have divergent notions as well of which cameras yield the best captures.

Thus, we shall agree to disagree.
CM_laptop said:
but my experience differs greatly, as I previously pointed out.

I'm talking from experience with the cams, prints in hand; from the
D40/50 as well as the 20/30D (not D80);
finding shadow detail more fragile with the Canons; which is very
visible in print.
I'm not interested in theories espoused by forums or websites which
very often are very far from reality; but true real-life experience
in pro work.

That's why I value your opinion/experience; even though it contrasts
so much with mine.

Could be from our different experiences & proficiencies in processing
files from the two series of cameras, could be alot of factors; we'll
just have to agree to disagree.

We each will continue to use what works best for us; & in the pro
world that also means that which works with the least fuss & give
least problems.

regards
C_M
Kabe Luna said:
...from both, though not in C1 LE, since as I previously shared, I
don't like the IQ (or workflow) at all. I used Aperture and, rarely,
Lightroom to evaluate the files. They were softer and, thus, less
prone to moire by a small degree than D70/s files, but in terms of
noise performance and dynamic range, I didn't find them significantly
different from my D70 files at all. Thus, I didn't end up keeping
either, instead picking up a D80, which was an improvement in almost
every way, but still trailed the Canon in terms of highlight headroom
and shadow detail beyond ISO 500. At lower ISO values, there are far
fewer differences and, in fact, I prefer the Nikons for their faster
handling, better UI and superior metering, which make for better
casual use cameras. Which is the reason I got a D80 to begin with
(D70 was a stinker because of too-frequent moire and other aliasing
artifacts resulting from the too-weak AA filter).

With CCD Nikons, there is sufficient shadow noise beyond ISO 500 to
make the extraction of useful shadow detail (luminance detail)
limited at best. Even with my D80, I find I must simply crush shadows
rather than lift them in order to minimize the appearance of grain in
prints. On the other hand, until pattern noise become intrusive (ISO
1600 on the 30D with tungsten light and mild underexposure or
daylight with severe underexposure), the Canon XXD cameras,
generally, yield appreciably greater shadow luminance detail, along
with more chroma noise which can largely be minimized, if not
eliminated, without detriment to the overall appearance of the
shadow. The Canons also give 1/3 to 2/3 more recoverability of
highlight detail thanks to lossless compression of RAW data.
Meanwhile, Nikon's compression scheme for NEFs in the DXX cameras
involves throwing away highlight data determined (by the camera's
algorithms) to be imperceptible, limiting the ability to recover
highlights. In short, beyond ISO 500 the XXD Canons provide files
that are much more flexible for post-processing than do the DXX
Nikons because of cleaner, more detailed shadows and greater
highlight recoverability.

That's my experience through the 30D/D80 generation, which are my
most recent firsthand experience with the respective brands.
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com
 
Kabe Luna said:
Thanks, but I don't think you need to police the forum. I'm more than
capable of determining the merit of CM_laptop's assertions, as I'm
sure most forum users are. What's more, CM_Laptop and I both have
managed to remain civil in our discourse even as we've disagreed
staunchly. Of course, you're free to interject your own
opinion/experience, but what do you hope to gain from badgering?
Other than making yourself look like a kid in search of a fight, that
is? Take the high road, man: state your case and let it rest. Any
sensible person takes what he/she reads on these types of forum for
what it is by and large: unsubstantiated, often hyperbolic opinion.
Click to expand...
absolutely,
problem is that

1. I always take and handle personal attacks.. personally

2. you could express the same exact feelings to my counterpart and I don't see that happening . And because I don't see that happening I reserve the right to express my own feeling about your feelings being not balanced.

I mean.. no?

:)

by nature (mine) if I ever find myself in the position to resolve an argument or a confrontation I won't insult just one part calling him "a kid looking for a fight". That I don't do.

and if you look closer I never insulted the cm guy and as he did once (just once) and never again after that

why do you want to start insulting me when CM and I don't even do it?
 
adrian26 said:
So, regarding the initial question, VR is pretty much the same with IS?
Click to expand...
Ive been shooting a 70-200VR nikon and I shoot with the same canon lens in regular basis and I don't see any difference in the pictures and percentage of good shots .

so in my experience I can say that VR and IS on the lenses mentioned do pretty much the same job

but not all the IS are made the same: for example the 70-200 F4IS gave me extremely shaken shots once in a while, not all the time but often. That doesn't happen (that often) with the 2.8 version. But like a pretty girl you tend to forgive a lot because the f4IS can be spectacular, small and beautiful. Just not as consistent (in terms of stabilization) as the older IS engine of the 2.8

I also shoot with the 24-105 f/4IS and again the stabilization is intermittent. To the point that I turn it off most of the time.

the jpeg engine of the small nikons give more saturated colors and a slightly better sharpness (and AF) compared to the canons of the same league.
put that togheter and you get better 4x6 in jopeg right out of the memory card.

but a test that I did within a d80 and a 5D gave the 5D so much better to be embarrassing for the D80.

still 4x6 prints with the nikons do look good. assuming that you print at home because for example the lab that use (noritsu printers) told me that the nikons and in particular the small ones need a lot of "attentions", more than the canons that only give a slight magenta cast instead.
 
adrian26 wrote:

so let's concentrate on what you have .. and please don't mind my comments to come :)

in a church 400ISO won't make it, with or without stabilization

you had a fast lens, even if you open up to f/2.8 you'll need at least 1,000ISO to get a decent shutter speed

more than 1,000ISO will need a lot of processing in order to produce for the album

also don't judge by the images on the LCD because everything look great when you shoot at 1/20 or similar: but then you open the image and things change (dramatically)

let's say 1,000 ISO , f/2.8 1/40 and shots in a burst

but then shooting a lens at f/2.8 will give you a very thin depth of field: shooting more than 1 subject will give the subject in focus and the others OOF

pretty much the same at 3.5

bottom line it depends (and who said that wedding photogreaphy was easy ...LOL)

but definitely don't judge by the LCD (not yours and not others')

here's a 1,000ISO shot inside St.Patrick in NYC (Cardinal Egan in the shot)
1/40 , F/3.5 , 70-200IS , 1Ds II



St.Patrick (in NYC) is a very "tall" church and dark , no flash allowed and 1,000 ISO was mandatory but again that's not a good material for an album. In my opinion of course. I see many shooting 1,600ISO but my question stays: for an album? maybe as a background for a flush , in black and white and faded...but for a matted I am not sure.
 
...if you assert that neither you nor CM_Laptop have insulted one another within the context of this thread, calling, I certainly have not insulted you by asking what you hoped to achieve by incessantly badgering CM_Laptop other than "making yourself look like a kid in search of a fight."

And I'm appealing to you because you are the one repeatedly inserting yourself into a discussion CM_laptop and I are having, though without any contributions specifically relevant to that discussion. Rather, you seem to be continuing some row you two started prior to this thread, which is entirely of no importance or interest to me. And since you obviously see yourself as more experienced and mature, I thought you'd like the opportunity demonstrate that by behaving like an adult.

BTW, this isn't about feelings at all, at least for me. And perhaps that's the problem: none of this should about feelings. We're talking about photo gear, not curing cancer, after all.
cityphotographer said:
Kabe Luna said:
Thanks, but I don't think you need to police the forum. I'm more than
capable of determining the merit of CM_laptop's assertions, as I'm
sure most forum users are. What's more, CM_Laptop and I both have
managed to remain civil in our discourse even as we've disagreed
staunchly. Of course, you're free to interject your own
opinion/experience, but what do you hope to gain from badgering?
Other than making yourself look like a kid in search of a fight, that
is? Take the high road, man: state your case and let it rest. Any
sensible person takes what he/she reads on these types of forum for
what it is by and large: unsubstantiated, often hyperbolic opinion.
Click to expand...
absolutely,
problem is that

1. I always take and handle personal attacks.. personally
2. you could express the same exact feelings to my counterpart and I
don't see that happening . And because I don't see that happening I
reserve the right to express my own feeling about your feelings being
not balanced.

I mean.. no?

:)

by nature (mine) if I ever find myself in the position to resolve an
argument or a confrontation I won't insult just one part calling him
"a kid looking for a fight". That I don't do.
and if you look closer I never insulted the cm guy and as he did once
(just once) and never again after that

why do you want to start insulting me when CM and I don't even do it?
Click to expand...
--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com
 
cityphotographer said:
St.Patrick (in NYC) is a very "tall" church and dark , no flash
allowed and 1,000 ISO was mandatory but again that's not a good
material for an album. In my opinion of course. I see many shooting
1,600ISO but my question stays: for an album? maybe as a background
for a flush , in black and white and faded...but for a matted I am
not sure.
Click to expand...
I use the 1DsII at my main camera of choice and I have no issue going right up to 1600. Even 3200 if it is required, but at 3200, to get clean images, very accurate exposure is needed. 8x10 and 12x18 prints from 1DsII files at 1600 have never given me noise that would be objectionable in a wedding or portrait image.

ISO 3200, 50mm lens



Now at full size, there is some noise, but it's minor and is not a problem. The image was overall 12x18 and was shot 1/2 over looking at the RAW conversion.
 
Jon Laye said:
I use the 1DsII at my main camera of choice and I have no issue going
right up to 1600. Even 3200 if it is required, but at 3200, to get
clean images, very accurate exposure is needed. 8x10 and 12x18
prints from 1DsII files at 1600 have never given me noise that would
be objectionable in a wedding or portrait image.

ISO 3200, 50mm lens
Click to expand...
Jon Laye said:
Now at full size, there is some noise, but it's minor and is not a
problem. The image was overall 12x18 and was shot 1/2 over looking
at the RAW conversion.
Click to expand...
so basically I'll keep it within the practice and the personal taste of the photographer.

the topic here is the church and church formals on a wedding. I like the colors of your picture - it looks like a 35 1.4 , with those intense colors actually ..:)

I can't agree about the use of 1,600 ISO with the album as a destination unless there is no other way to shoot but again for the altar and first kiss and the walking etc.there are very few churches that don't allow a proper lighting , or even two stands not too close to the altar. Im shooting weddings for 20 years and I don't remember more than 2 or three churches (tops) with a ban on lighting

but never since I shoot digital -6 years now)- (of course I try to arrange things in advance with the church lady or whoever is in charge)

well, I also do matted (only, basically) no flush (extremely rare) and mostly traditional italian-american couples with lots of formals from the engagement to the ceremony. maybe that explains ..?

in any case it's a great shot that you've got there with that many ISO in it

was it a reception? .. I'm asking because I don't do receptions anymore: do you? (just out of curiosity...)

:)
 
cityphotographer said:
Jon Laye said:
I use the 1DsII at my main camera of choice and I have no issue going
right up to 1600. Even 3200 if it is required, but at 3200, to get
clean images, very accurate exposure is needed. 8x10 and 12x18
prints from 1DsII files at 1600 have never given me noise that would
be objectionable in a wedding or portrait image.

ISO 3200, 50mm lens
Click to expand...
cityphotographer said:
Now at full size, there is some noise, but it's minor and is not a
problem. The image was overall 12x18 and was shot 1/2 over looking
at the RAW conversion.
Click to expand...
so basically I'll keep it within the practice and the personal taste
of the photographer.

the topic here is the church and church formals on a wedding. I like
the colors of your picture - it looks like a 35 1.4 , with those
intense colors actually ..:)

I can't agree about the use of 1,600 ISO with the album as a
destination unless there is no other way to shoot but again for the
altar and first kiss and the walking etc.there are very few churches
that don't allow a proper lighting , or even two stands not too close
to the altar. Im shooting weddings for 20 years and I don't remember
more than 2 or three churches (tops) with a ban on lighting
but never since I shoot digital -6 years now)- (of course I try to
arrange things in advance with the church lady or whoever is in
charge)
Click to expand...
In case we have a slight misunderstanding. for Formals, posed shots, I do set up a complete studio set up. 2-3 lights, 60" and 72" umbrellas, often at ISO 100, although if the venue has nice lighting I will go up to 400 or even 800 to capture the actual church/temple lighting in the background. For formals, and even during the ceremony I am on a tripod 90% of the time.

But for the reception I will try to capture the natural room lighting, along with 2 or more remote room lights, even if it means shooting at 1000ISO 1/30th. My biggest issues these days is getting the Speedotron packs low enough to not over power the feel of the room. For the shot I linked to, I was following the videographer as he got an end of night interview, basically point and shoot using his light.
cityphotographer said:
well, I also do matted (only, basically) no flush (extremely rare)
and mostly traditional italian-american couples with lots of formals
from the engagement to the ceremony. maybe that explains ..?

in any case it's a great shot that you've got there with that many
ISO in it
was it a reception? .. I'm asking because I don't do receptions
anymore: do you? (just out of curiosity...)
Click to expand...
90% of what we do are Coffee Table style albums, printed locally and shipped to a bindery for mounting in a flush style book. My studio shoots close to 150 social events, wedding and Mitzvahs per year and it is rare that we're not covering things from start to finish, from getting ready to when the music is over.
 
to the evolution of the sequence.

in any case I don't think that I have to explain myself to you. Just know that I didn't like your post. and the next one as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A_SCY
  • Question Question
Flash or no Flash in christenings?
Replies
7
Views
9K
NAwlins Contrarian
N
S
Help with Fuji X100VI Settings for indoor portraits/candids with built-in flash
Replies
7
Views
1K
Paulmorgan
P
H
Shots are not sharp when shooting at a long focal length with the NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
7K
ajr images
A
M
Just a simple D70 pic - with a touch of editing.
Replies
2
Views
3K
2sealsonwheels
2sealsonwheels
K
wedding (photography) advice
2 3
Replies
54
Views
5K
RBFresno
RBFresno

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