Reading mode: Light Dark

Snobbish SLR pro did NOT like my F717 and.........

Go to last post
Mark J said:
Uh.... I guess I didn't mention to anyone that we ARE in Florida LOL
Now what's the guy going to do ? LOL
Click to expand...
Been to Florida, it is a great place to have fun, guess he is "Outta Luck". :-)))Nothing better than having dinner in a chickee hut watching the sunset.

Regards,
--
Mike

'The reason for time is that everything doesn't happen at once.' - Albert Einstein
 
I only saw one other post from you in this thread and that's what I replied to. I never mentioned anything about consistency or performance either. My point is that the prosumer digital cams can produce as good of a shot as comparable film camera. I still stand by my point that a pro photographer can be handed a G3 or 717 and take some equal quality shots as they would with film. Both cams lend them the ability to handle situations that their film counterparts have.

The point of the original post was that a Film SLR user shunned Digital all together. Take that person's F2 and todays comparable DSLR and compare them and I bet he'd switch.

Overall I wasn't implying that one could replace a High End SLR or DSLR with a prosumer model.
MAC said:
"consistent results with equipment designed to handle the conditions"

MAC
Tim Lauro said:
Most of what I've seen and use digital for, the pics are much
better. The editing, ease of use, practice ability, and in general
just the instant feedback, all combine to give me better results
than film.

Hey, I'm no pro and I'd say the majority of folks here aren't
either. So in the end, while the facts don't yield the prosumer
models equal, many times the end results do.

I know plenty of pro's that use a prosumer digital in combination
with the good stuff of both film and digital worlds. Even our
wedding photographer used a simple 35mm film camera in combination
with her big one. Different types of photos and reasons of course,
but nonetheless, many do use less than pefect cams for various
reasons. IMO, those Pro's that I know have shown me completely
awesome shots with even simple cameras. So long as they offer a
certain level of manual control, the real pro isn't relying on the
camera completely.

tim
MAC said:
Maybe this wasn't in the context completely of your point, but it's
my post and my point, folks thinking the 717 is better than film
cams -- well this is not true.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
Click to expand...
 
No matter what you say.... :-)

ISO 1600 handheld:

MAC







Tim Lauro said:
The point of the original post was that a Film SLR user shunned
Digital all together. Take that person's F2 and todays comparable
DSLR and compare them and I bet he'd switch.

Overall I wasn't implying that one could replace a High End SLR or
DSLR with a prosumer model.
MAC said:
"consistent results with equipment designed to handle the conditions"

MAC
Tim Lauro said:
Most of what I've seen and use digital for, the pics are much
better. The editing, ease of use, practice ability, and in general
just the instant feedback, all combine to give me better results
than film.

Hey, I'm no pro and I'd say the majority of folks here aren't
either. So in the end, while the facts don't yield the prosumer
models equal, many times the end results do.

I know plenty of pro's that use a prosumer digital in combination
with the good stuff of both film and digital worlds. Even our
wedding photographer used a simple 35mm film camera in combination
with her big one. Different types of photos and reasons of course,
but nonetheless, many do use less than pefect cams for various
reasons. IMO, those Pro's that I know have shown me completely
awesome shots with even simple cameras. So long as they offer a
certain level of manual control, the real pro isn't relying on the
camera completely.

tim
MAC said:
Maybe this wasn't in the context completely of your point, but it's
my post and my point, folks thinking the 717 is better than film
cams -- well this is not true.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
 
Shoot the Sony at f/2 - f/2.4, ISO 800.

I bet you would have the same shutter speed, cause I bet your lenses weren't f/2 to f/2.4

Yes the Sony would have more noise, but that can be processed out using Neat Image, etc.

I agree that the results wouldn't have been quite as good, but the Sony can get those shots thanks to ISO 800 and a superfast zoom lens.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work
 
You do nice work shay, as always, with ISO 100! These still lifes are awesome and pro work. great job! i am generalizing by saying if folks do this for a living -- they'll want tools that will cover more dynamic range -- ISO 1600 for action in low light, etc and low noise at ISO 200, 400 and 800. Fast focus and fast lenses when things are moving.

Film cams already do this at lower body cost but higher film costs. DSLR's do this. My G3 and the 717 do not have this dynamic range for action and low light without flash. My D30 does. The 717 did your shot as good as my D30 or G3 would...however, with the canon or metz flash set-up, there is more consistency in flash photography with the canons...maybe not an impact here for these still shots...but action packed event photography...I breath easier with canon. 717 does other things well though so for its intended use, it is an excellent tool as you show time and time again.

MAC
Shay Stephens said:
Not sure what you mean by consistancy, but I think you may be over
generalizing a bit. There are a number of things the F717 can do
in a pro environment. I just finished shooting some product
photography for a jewelry maker. I used the F717 and it produced
great results:





--
Shay

My Sony F707 & F717 Gallery: http://www.shaystephens.com/portfolio.asp
My F717 Observations: http://www.shaystephens.com/f717.asp
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
 
It is also a function of focus speed Mathew..and burst rate .. in a two hour event I burst shoot 600 pics :-) the VB shot and BBall shot are examples. Without fast focus equipment such as 70 -200 f2.8 lens -- no way would sony's lens keep up.

Also as an example the VBALL shot was burst shooting in a low light gym where even at f2.8 --- you want ss of 1/500 to stop motion, the best that could be done was ISO 1600 to get a ss of 1/320 in manual mode...again no way would Sony or G3 do this....

The advantage of these expanded dynamic range features, ISO 1600, and a quick focus and a sharp lens BTW, is that the college liked the shots!

Imagine being in a church and burst shooting dozens of shots without flash as the wedding party comes down the aisle -- again, technology that gives the shooter the advantage and the clients the value.

BTW -- I started with the Kodak cam then the 505v ! These statements are after 505v, D30 and G3 ownership.

A EOS 3 or Elan 7 or 1V film cam would do nicely with these also -- and initially cost less -- but one needs to spend $3 - $4K on DSLR to see these advantages in shooting.

MAC
Matthew Cromer said:
Shoot the Sony at f/2 - f/2.4, ISO 800.

I bet you would have the same shutter speed, cause I bet your
lenses weren't f/2 to f/2.4

Yes the Sony would have more noise, but that can be processed out
using Neat Image, etc.

I agree that the results wouldn't have been quite as good, but the
Sony can get those shots thanks to ISO 800 and a superfast zoom
lens.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
 
well, one....there is no ISO 1600 on the 717 or a simliar camera of it's class....and two, for what it's worth, it does do a damn good job, no matter how hard you try and mis-compare it with an SLR.

http://community.webshots.com/album/23436055PtWsWcXBEP

http://community.webshots.com/album/32105461rKVeNuliJK

Images courtesy of Pat @ STF
MAC said:
No matter what you say.... :-)

ISO 1600 handheld:
Click to expand...
MAC said:
Tim Lauro said:
The point of the original post was that a Film SLR user shunned
Digital all together. Take that person's F2 and todays comparable
DSLR and compare them and I bet he'd switch.

Overall I wasn't implying that one could replace a High End SLR or
DSLR with a prosumer model.
MAC said:
"consistent results with equipment designed to handle the conditions"

MAC
Tim Lauro said:
Most of what I've seen and use digital for, the pics are much
better. The editing, ease of use, practice ability, and in general
just the instant feedback, all combine to give me better results
than film.

Hey, I'm no pro and I'd say the majority of folks here aren't
either. So in the end, while the facts don't yield the prosumer
models equal, many times the end results do.

I know plenty of pro's that use a prosumer digital in combination
with the good stuff of both film and digital worlds. Even our
wedding photographer used a simple 35mm film camera in combination
with her big one. Different types of photos and reasons of course,
but nonetheless, many do use less than pefect cams for various
reasons. IMO, those Pro's that I know have shown me completely
awesome shots with even simple cameras. So long as they offer a
certain level of manual control, the real pro isn't relying on the
camera completely.

tim
MAC said:
Maybe this wasn't in the context completely of your point, but it's
my post and my point, folks thinking the 717 is better than film
cams -- well this is not true.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
Click to expand...
 
In order to sell action photos, you need to see threads on the ball. Check my article link below and the link to a sports shooter I know who used the D30 then upgraded to 1D--Steve Mitchell--one of the best. 717 will not take action photos that "consistently sell" The 5x lens is good for stills and ISO 100 shots -- but action -- no way can it consistently perform and stop the motion and stop motion and see the threads on the ball -- the focus, the lens, are not fast enough -- this is where folks need the DSLR or to go back to film. Asking for everything out of a 5x lens is a lot to ask. The 717 is good for walk-around shots and stills at ISO 100 and some night shots. My G3 will have many of the advantages my DSLR will not, both tools give the shooter the table saw and the miter saw -- tools that one needs to do different jobs.

MAC
http://www.shutterfreaks.com/Tips/StoppingMotion.htm

http://digisportspix.com/
Tim Lauro said:
http://community.webshots.com/album/23436055PtWsWcXBEP

http://community.webshots.com/album/32105461rKVeNuliJK

Images courtesy of Pat @ STF
MAC said:
No matter what you say.... :-)

ISO 1600 handheld:
Click to expand...
pdqgp said:
Tim Lauro said:
The point of the original post was that a Film SLR user shunned
Digital all together. Take that person's F2 and todays comparable
DSLR and compare them and I bet he'd switch.

Overall I wasn't implying that one could replace a High End SLR or
DSLR with a prosumer model.
MAC said:
"consistent results with equipment designed to handle the conditions"

MAC
Tim Lauro said:
Most of what I've seen and use digital for, the pics are much
better. The editing, ease of use, practice ability, and in general
just the instant feedback, all combine to give me better results
than film.

Hey, I'm no pro and I'd say the majority of folks here aren't
either. So in the end, while the facts don't yield the prosumer
models equal, many times the end results do.

I know plenty of pro's that use a prosumer digital in combination
with the good stuff of both film and digital worlds. Even our
wedding photographer used a simple 35mm film camera in combination
with her big one. Different types of photos and reasons of course,
but nonetheless, many do use less than pefect cams for various
reasons. IMO, those Pro's that I know have shown me completely
awesome shots with even simple cameras. So long as they offer a
certain level of manual control, the real pro isn't relying on the
camera completely.

tim
MAC said:
Maybe this wasn't in the context completely of your point, but it's
my post and my point, folks thinking the 717 is better than film
cams -- well this is not true.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
 
Yes , I understand it. Most cameras can stop and expose the threads on a baseball. thats simple. You don't need a DSLR for that. How about this shot. I can do this consistantly with the 717. This one was with the 707 early evening in lower light. My 14 yr old grandson throws pretty fast.
John

http://www.pbase.com/image/8945785/original
JohnMAC said:
MAC
http://www.shutterfreaks.com/Tips/StoppingMotion.htm

http://digisportspix.com/
Tim Lauro said:
http://community.webshots.com/album/23436055PtWsWcXBEP

http://community.webshots.com/album/32105461rKVeNuliJK

Images courtesy of Pat @ STF
MAC said:
No matter what you say.... :-)

ISO 1600 handheld:
Click to expand...
MAC said:
Tim Lauro said:
The point of the original post was that a Film SLR user shunned
Digital all together. Take that person's F2 and todays comparable
DSLR and compare them and I bet he'd switch.

Overall I wasn't implying that one could replace a High End SLR or
DSLR with a prosumer model.
MAC said:
"consistent results with equipment designed to handle the conditions"

MAC
Tim Lauro said:
Most of what I've seen and use digital for, the pics are much
better. The editing, ease of use, practice ability, and in general
just the instant feedback, all combine to give me better results
than film.

Hey, I'm no pro and I'd say the majority of folks here aren't
either. So in the end, while the facts don't yield the prosumer
models equal, many times the end results do.

I know plenty of pro's that use a prosumer digital in combination
with the good stuff of both film and digital worlds. Even our
wedding photographer used a simple 35mm film camera in combination
with her big one. Different types of photos and reasons of course,
but nonetheless, many do use less than pefect cams for various
reasons. IMO, those Pro's that I know have shown me completely
awesome shots with even simple cameras. So long as they offer a
certain level of manual control, the real pro isn't relying on the
camera completely.

tim
MAC said:
Maybe this wasn't in the context completely of your point, but it's
my post and my point, folks thinking the 717 is better than film
cams -- well this is not true.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
Click to expand...
 
Let me know if you need to see more. I have a disc full of them from my Olympus C2100UZ also.Piece of cake!
John
johnd1 said:
http://www.pbase.com/image/8945785/original
JohnMAC said:
MAC
http://www.shutterfreaks.com/Tips/StoppingMotion.htm

http://digisportspix.com/
Tim Lauro said:
http://community.webshots.com/album/23436055PtWsWcXBEP

http://community.webshots.com/album/32105461rKVeNuliJK

Images courtesy of Pat @ STF
MAC said:
No matter what you say.... :-)

ISO 1600 handheld:
Click to expand...
johnd1 said:
Tim Lauro said:
The point of the original post was that a Film SLR user shunned
Digital all together. Take that person's F2 and todays comparable
DSLR and compare them and I bet he'd switch.

Overall I wasn't implying that one could replace a High End SLR or
DSLR with a prosumer model.
MAC said:
"consistent results with equipment designed to handle the conditions"

MAC
Tim Lauro said:
Most of what I've seen and use digital for, the pics are much
better. The editing, ease of use, practice ability, and in general
just the instant feedback, all combine to give me better results
than film.

Hey, I'm no pro and I'd say the majority of folks here aren't
either. So in the end, while the facts don't yield the prosumer
models equal, many times the end results do.

I know plenty of pro's that use a prosumer digital in combination
with the good stuff of both film and digital worlds. Even our
wedding photographer used a simple 35mm film camera in combination
with her big one. Different types of photos and reasons of course,
but nonetheless, many do use less than pefect cams for various
reasons. IMO, those Pro's that I know have shown me completely
awesome shots with even simple cameras. So long as they offer a
certain level of manual control, the real pro isn't relying on the
camera completely.

tim
MAC said:
Maybe this wasn't in the context completely of your point, but it's
my post and my point, folks thinking the 717 is better than film
cams -- well this is not true.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I don't do sports action shots. Does this mean I'm ok with my F717 to sell my work ?

go to my image gallery and tell me where I would advance with ownership of a DSLR or even using my still owned Canon EOS Rebel G ?

My point is, not everyone is in need of ISO 1600, not everyone is in need of mural size enlargements. I'm not saying my photography is so great that I don't need or want a DSLR or that I wouldn't have loved owning an EOS Elan when I was shooint SLR work, I'm saying that if I want to create a line of greeting cards from my shots... my F717 will work just fine.

There will come a time however that the digital cam market will surpass the usefullness of a SLR.... it WILL happen, trust me. The words "one hour photo lab" will be as extinct as a the caveman :-)

http://studiomgallery.com/gallery

PS, I had a feeling someone would turn this thread into a SLR vs. digicam debate... not my intent or fault of course :-)

Mark J
 
enjoyable pic John! Although His right foot is blurred and he could be throwing a knuckle ball and shot is mostly straight on-- hehe -- very good pic John!

well, rotate the pic a bit so the fence is level and I think you have a very good pic John -- I enjoyed it!

But truth is -- no pro sports shooter uses this cam for their business -- none -- because it is not the right tool.

For the hobbiest -- it is neat to see if one can do what you did. I shot triple A major league baseball at 1/4000 ss to stop the pitchers pitch and see the threads from beyond 1str base at about a 90 degree angle to the flight of the ball vs strait on in the link before.

MAC
johnd1 said:
http://www.pbase.com/image/8945785/original
JohnMAC said:
In order to sell action photos, you need to see threads on the
ball. Check my article link below and the link to a sports shooter
I know who used the D30 then upgraded to 1D--Steve Mitchell--one of
the best. 717 will not take action photos that "consistently sell"
The 5x lens is good for stills and ISO 100 shots -- but action --
no way can it consistently perform and stop the motion and stop
motion and see the threads on the ball -- the focus, the lens, are
not fast enough -- this is where folks need the DSLR or to go back
to film. Asking for everything out of a 5x lens is a lot to ask.
The 717 is good for walk-around shots and stills at ISO 100 and
some night shots. My G3 will have many of the advantages my DSLR
will not, both tools give the shooter the table saw and the miter
saw -- tools that one needs to do different jobs.

MAC
http://www.shutterfreaks.com/Tips/StoppingMotion.htm

http://digisportspix.com/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
 
Hmm, I like that cam for shots of birds roosting! Bit noisy though as my friend Dogleader can attest.

Nah...I don't need to see more, but I enjoyed your post John!

MAC
johnd1 said:
Let me know if you need to see more. I have a disc full of them
from my Olympus C2100UZ also.Piece of cake!
John
MAC
Click to expand...
http://www.digi-pictures.com
 
God,I got a ton of these. Who ever said it's not the camera it's the photographer was so right. Could you imagine how good I'd be as a pro?.

This is so easy. It took a lot of practice but I can catch the ball just before it makes contact with the bat nearly 75% of the time. All this with a camera that cost $375.00 10X optical with IS. How much you guess it would be with a DSLR? Check out the link , you'll be surprised!BTW, Thats my grandson again . It was a GS home run.
John

http://www.pbase.com/image/1763689/large
johnd1 said:
johnd1 said:
http://www.pbase.com/image/8945785/original
JohnMAC said:
In order to sell action photos, you need to see threads on the
ball. 717 will not take action photos that "consistently sell"
The 5x lens is good for stills and ISO 100 shots -- but action --
no way can it consistently perform and stop the motion and stop
motion and see the threads on the ball --
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Mac,

I know full well what you mean. If I was doing this for a living ,I'd need a faster shutter speed than what the 717 has but it's fun trying to come close. I often shoot the games with pros and enjoy their company as they usually have favorable comments about my consumer cameras. Just like you.
Thanks,
John
MAC said:
well, rotate the pic a bit so the fence is level and I think you
have a very good pic John -- I enjoyed it!

But truth is -- no pro sports shooter uses this cam for their
business -- none -- because it is not the right tool.

For the hobbiest -- it is neat to see if one can do what you did.
I shot triple A major league baseball at 1/4000 ss to stop the
pitchers pitch and see the threads from beyond 1str base at about a
90 degree angle to the flight of the ball vs strait on in the link
before.

MAC
johnd1 said:
http://www.pbase.com/image/8945785/original
JohnMAC said:
In order to sell action photos, you need to see threads on the
ball. Check my article link below and the link to a sports shooter
I know who used the D30 then upgraded to 1D--Steve Mitchell--one of
the best. 717 will not take action photos that "consistently sell"
The 5x lens is good for stills and ISO 100 shots -- but action --
no way can it consistently perform and stop the motion and stop
motion and see the threads on the ball -- the focus, the lens, are
not fast enough -- this is where folks need the DSLR or to go back
to film. Asking for everything out of a 5x lens is a lot to ask.
The 717 is good for walk-around shots and stills at ISO 100 and
some night shots. My G3 will have many of the advantages my DSLR
will not, both tools give the shooter the table saw and the miter
saw -- tools that one needs to do different jobs.

MAC
http://www.shutterfreaks.com/Tips/StoppingMotion.htm

http://digisportspix.com/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
Click to expand...
 
Mark J said:
I don't do sports action shots. Does this mean I'm ok with my F717
to sell my work ?
Click to expand...
Yes -- your still life work is nice! But I'll not hire a shooter with only a 717 to do my daughters wedding...flash photography is not its strength in high paced indoor event photography...
Mark J said:
go to my image gallery and tell me where I would advance with
ownership of a DSLR or even using my still owned Canon EOS Rebel G ?
Click to expand...
Action photography -- birds in flight or animals on the run! Action Photography indoors with and without a flash -- just a few examples.
Mark J said:
My point is, not everyone is in need of ISO 1600, not everyone is
in need of mural size enlargements. I'm not saying my photography
is so great that I don't need or want a DSLR or that I wouldn't
have loved owning an EOS Elan when I was shooint SLR work, I'm
saying that if I want to create a line of greeting cards from my
shots... my F717 will work just fine.
Click to expand...
I also had greeting cards back when I had the 505v and have them today! Great tool if you can get the colors right. 717 has improved colors -- looks like your work will be good for still life greeting cards.
Mark J said:
There will come a time however that the digital cam market will
surpass the usefullness of a SLR.... it WILL happen, trust me. The
words "one hour photo lab" will be as extinct as a the caveman :-)
Click to expand...
No it will not soon --- because no one piece of glass can do it all -- changeable lenses will remain -- 5x is asking too much... in the DSLR we need 5 -6 pieces of glass to cover the range and have the flexibility -- change is not about digital bodies, it is about glass -- why do you think glass technology will change so rapidly??
Mark J said:
http://studiomgallery.com/gallery

PS, I had a feeling someone would turn this thread into a SLR vs.
digicam debate... not my intent or fault of course :-)
Click to expand...
Why do you think it is a fault to give sound advice to Sony users who might want to see the advantages of using that film body or a DSLR?

what is the intent of a forum -- to encourage improvement I hope...and not be a Sonyist -- look --even Uly and I were Sonyists -- now we're buying G3's and continue to hope for our dream DSLR that will last instead of be obsolete in 3 years! hehe

MAC
Mark J said:
Mark J
Click to expand...
--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com
 
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