Reading mode: Light Dark

How the post-Sandy 'New York' cover photo was shot with a 1DX

Go to last post
pixeldegree

pixeldegree

Active member
Messages
50
Reaction score
59
From the article:

"[It was] the kind of shot which was impossible to take before this camera was there,” Baan said."

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/...how-he-got-that-new-york-magazine-cover-shot/


nymag1.jpeg
 
Last edited:
BCnaturephoto said:
BCnaturephoto wrote:

How can this be? I thought this was only possible with Sony sensors and not the lousy, outdated ones Canon puts in their cameras of late? :-P
Click to expand...
Obviously, either the Photog never heard of a D3S or he just meant impossible with a Canon before the 1DX (which I don't think is true either)?
 
Last edited:



What he means is that for that high a ISO. The 5DIII, 5DII and a lot of the Nikons have good-decent high ISO, but if you want the lowest noise and 18MP, the 1Dx is king. The noise on the D4 is about the same (a little more) , and it has more DR, but you get 2 more MP. So the 1Dx beats out the D4 (BARELY)




Before, you would need a stabilizer. What I would have done, was take a few wide and FAST primes. Like the 24mm and 35. I would say this, if the 24-70 2.8II was a IS lens, it would be the best zoom in that range in the world.. HANDS DOWN. I love the 24-70 II except no IS.. I would have paid $500 more for IS ;)


MajStriker said:
Even as a Canon user...it doesn't seem very impressive to me. Certainly nothing that a 5D II or III couldn't have captured, not to mention Nikon's FF models...
Click to expand...
 
MASTERPPA said:
MASTERPPA wrote:

What he means is that for that high a ISO. The 5DIII, 5DII and a lot of the Nikons have good-decent high ISO, but if you want the lowest noise and 18MP, the 1Dx is king.
Click to expand...
If you want the lowest noise, the 2 are neck and neck. He made no mention of 18MP being necessary for the shot.
MASTERPPA said:
The noise on the D4 is about the same (a little more) , and it has more DR, but you get 2 more MP. So the 1Dx beats out the D4 (BARELY)
Click to expand...
He surely was not referring to the extra 2 megapizels, but in any case, he could have taken this shot regardless with the D4 or even D3s.
 
Member said:
WalterSrChat wrote:

Enough Talk, We want to see the comparison shot under the same conditions, without using Canon’s 1Dx.
Click to expand...
Based on your opinion, are you going to stand by the positon that this shot would have been impossible with the D4 or D3s?
 
Yeah, but Sandy didn't hit until after the 1DX was released....
 
...with such huge leaps in sensor technology.

Myself, I have this photo I've been wanting to do for quite a long time: A dusk shot from my cockpit of the Amsterdam area. The sheer number of flower heated green houses on the ground make for a vision like something out of Blade Runner.

I expect it to be possible in 1 or 2 camera generations.

PK
 
What a stupid thing to say, that night photography from Helicopters was not possible before the X.

I was doing it before digital with colour film on MF, I've been doing it with 1DsII's and 1DsIII, I now have the X. The X is fantastic at night from a helicopter, I've done two jobs recently at night, but I still use gyros and opt for lower iso, to be honest it's the professional way to do it.

As great at high iso as the X is, like all cameras lower iso is better, I've shot long after Sunset at 1600iso from helicopters. There are techniques which need to be learned to get the best night aerial.

I'm sure there are photographers that have shot more night aerials than me but not many, it's been possible to do for many years, cameras like the X just make it easier.




Kevin.
 
MASTERPPA said:
MASTERPPA wrote:
What he means is that for that high a ISO. The 5DIII, 5DII and a lot of the Nikons have good-decent high ISO, but if you want the lowest noise and 18MP, the 1Dx is king. The noise on the D4 is about the same (a little more) , and it has more DR, but you get 2 more MP. So the 1Dx beats out the D4 (BARELY)

Before, you would need a stabilizer. What I would have done, was take a few wide and FAST primes. Like the 24mm and 35. I would say this, if the 24-70 2.8II was a IS lens, it would be the best zoom in that range in the world.. HANDS DOWN. I love the 24-70 II except no IS.. I would have paid $500 more for IS ;)
MASTERPPA said:
Even as a Canon user...it doesn't seem very impressive to me. Certainly nothing that a 5D II or III couldn't have captured, not to mention Nikon's FF models...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JimKasson
Why we own cameras, and why it matters
2 3
Replies
42
Views
123K
Rob de Loe
Rob de Loe
R
  • User review User review
Well rounded
2 3
Replies
42
Views
144K
RLight
R
D
Sigma 300-600 4 DG OS Sports – Review After 14 Days of Testing
Replies
1
Views
66K
jerste
J
Brev00
A True Treasure of Photography: The New York Times
Replies
9
Views
10
Brev00
Brev00
Greg7579
A Free Real Estate Shot for a Local Magazine
Replies
13
Views
669
Canadianguy
C

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