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

Started Nov 8, 2012 | Discussions thread
KAllen Veteran Member • Posts: 3,868
Re: How the post-Sandy 'New York' cover photo was shot with a 1DX

jjnik wrote:

WalterSrChat wrote:

jjnik wrote:

WalterSrChat wrote:

jjnik wrote:

ron purdy wrote:

Even as a Canon 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...

-- hide signature --

Um, it's not a gear contest.

Get beyond the gear brain mentality, and consider the image for what it is.

It's fabulous. (And yes, impressive IMO.)

-- hide signature --

ron purdy dot com

Most of us agree that it's a good image.

With respect to the "gear contest", this is a GEAR forum and the OP quoted Photog in the piece as stating that this was "the kind of shot which was impossible to take before this camera (1DX) was there". Some of us are just pointing out that this statement is simply not true (and has not been true for a few years now).

You say it is not true, so why not show us another shot, under the same conditions as those present in that shot?

Enough Talk, We want to see the comparison shot under the same conditions, without using Canon’s 1Dx.

We want to see the shot!

Show it to us Jjnik!

Walter Sr

-- hide signature --

I am out to take the perfect picture, if it exits!

Umm...I don't have access to a helicopter to replicate the same conditions as this shot.

i think the 1DX is a great camera and if you want to believe that only the 1DX could take this shot, go ahead and believe that - reasonable people know otherwise.

There is a huge difference between knowing and believing.

Most people know one item plus one item equals two items, because they have done the math.

Sure - but, in this case, it's semantics. Most people also "know" the earth is round, but they've never actually gone into space and orbited it themselves - they've relied on quantitative scientific and photographic evidence to KNOW that it is, in fact, round and not flat. So, by your logic, are astronauts the only ones who can say they KNOW the earth is round? If you believe that, you are just being argumentative for the sake of it (imho)!

BTW, if one item is matter and the other item is anti-matter, then combining the 2 will not result in 2 items, as both items will be annilhilated - so, since you seem to like to be literal, your example is flawed!

Some people believe they can climb Mount Everest, but do not know they can.

apples and oranges: your example is related to an individual's physical capabilities and limitations - not the gear they'd use. The photog is claiming/implying that specfic gear (1DX) made this previously impossible shot possible - not his personal capabilities/skill!

My point is you will not know something can or cannot be done until you have verification, or you try to do it.

So please do not make knowing statements, without verification, about what can or cannot be done.

It would be appropriate to say, you and others do not believe the 1Dx is the only camera that can take that picture, because you can believe whatever we wish, but to say without any proof that the Ops comments are false is extremely troubling.

Really, so please point me to your post where you chastised the OP and Photog for not backing up the claim about the image: "[It was] the kind of shot which was impossible to take before this camera was there,”. I don't see where he provided any evidence that he tried to take this photo with other cameras and was unsuccessful - so, by your logic, he also should be called out for making a "knowing statement, without verification". Hmmm... I mut have missed your post - please send me a link.

Look - it's a great image that captured a compelling moment (believe me, I live in NJ and was directly affected by this storm) and I believe (since I have not used one) that the 1DX is a phenomenal camera. But to state that an image like this was not possible before the 1DX is ignorant to technology - the D3S could have captured this image just as easily and has been available since 2009. However, feel free to stick your head in the sand and ignore the quantitive data and numerous examples of the incredible high ISO capabilities of other cameras (Nikon and Canon) that are readiliy available on the web.

Finally, if you still disagree (which you are certainly entitled to), then please tell me what is it about this image that supports the premise that it was not possible to take before the 1DX? Neither the OP nor the Photog provided any rationale to back up the statement? Please enlighten me!

Oh, and Speak for yourself!

and where did I say I was speaking for you?? Oh, and you might want to lose the self righteous attitiude - you come accross as a douche!

Walter Sr

-- hide signature --

I am out to take the perfect picture, if it exits!

PS - Since the exact quote was:

“[It was] the kind of shot which was impossible to take before this camera was there,”

Given your penchant to keep thing literal, maybe he meant that he could not take the picture before the 1DX was physically in his possession - If that's the case, then I agree as it's hard to take a picture if you don't actually have the camera "there".

This shot was possible way before the X D4 D3 or any digital camera, the Makina 67 with colour neg was my favourite, a 6x7 image with a fast'ish lens and no mirror to vibrate. 800iso film was all there was, a 1/30th at f2.8 was the only option with the camera mounted on a gyro.

Photography is like sex, each generation things they found it first.


 KAllen's gear list:KAllen's gear list
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS-1D X Pentax K-1 Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM +4 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow