SDQH vs 5DSR

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 19,916
Re: SDQH vs 5DSR

Lin Evans wrote:

DMillier wrote:

Lin Evans wrote:

TN Args wrote:

Lin Evans wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

So Canon gets to keep their crown.

I AM surprised how good that 50mm f1.8 is. That is one hell of a lens. Another thing about it is how small and light that little sucker is. I wonder what it would be like to mount it on a Sigma SD Quattro H. What other lenses does Canon have that are so good? Is there a small and light 35mm f1.8 (or even a 35mm f2.8) that performs that well too?

-- hide signature --

Scott Barton Kennelly
http://www.bigprintphotos.com

I'm not so sure that I prefer the Canon. Look at the crops below and look at the halo's on each side of the Canon's capture of the masts. Look at original size. I thoroughly dislike having to remove sharpening halos - they are absolutely minimal with Sigma H but plain to see with Canon...

Lin

Sigma

Canon

Here is the offending rigging at a similar scale for both cameras:

Sigma left, Canon right, both in RawDigger

Looks like mountains out of molehills to me. Not to mention a clear case of trading off.

That's why we have choices. What appears to be "mountains out of molehills" to you appears to be very problematic for generous enlargement to me without extensive post processing. We don't use RawDigger to prep our images for printing. What matters to me is what I see after carefully exporting from the best software I have for each system. I see halos on my Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus and other CFA equipment - I don't on my Foveon equipment. For me it's a clear choice - I use Foveon whenever it is possible and I get better prints with much less work.

Best regards,

Lin

Or you could save yourself all the work and print smaller? There is much to admire in the skill and tenacity of "heroic" printers but actually if you print a little smaller than the maximum you believe a camera capable of, you get better quality for a lot less effort.

I remember the first time I looked at Laurence's big prints at the trade show I thought "they're very good but they would be even better an A size smaller and achieveable without the heroics".

The proportion of photographers who routinely print 60" prints must be quite small given that allegedly no one prints any more. When I shot film a 6x4 print was considered a maxi print and a 10x8 a big enlargement. It's good that we have cameras like Sigma that make bigger prints possible at modest cost but it is surely a niche sport.

Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

Save

The reason I like the Foveon technology is because I "dont" have to have all the "heroics" to print at the size my client's wish. In my own circle of photographer friends, I don't know a single soul who doesn't print. There is a very limited maket in my experience for any professional who doesn't print. Do you read National Geographic? Do you read Arizona Highways? (I know you don't because you don't live here). Go to any successful photographer's gallery and you don't see their work on diplays, you see it in print. People don't hang big electronic screens in their homes to look at images, they hang prints. Homes where I live are much, much larger in general than in the UK. It's not uncommon to find a great room in "many" homes which is larger than 35 x 25 feet. Large prints are commonplace here.

Best regards,

Lin

You're lucky to have any photographic friends, Lin.  Apart from Lea and Laurence, whom I've met a couple of times, I don't know anyone else personally who is a "serious" photographer. Everyone shoots pictures nowadays, of course, but I don't know any pros and I don't have any friends who are photographers.  In my office (of nearly a 1000 staff), they ask me to shoot the official photos because I'm supposedly the expert, LOL).

p.s.

I know nothing of this Arizona Highways other than what people mention here but we do have National Geographic.  I subscribed for one year and I have a handful of editions from 1969 that my grandmother gave me.  I'm underwhelmed by the magazine, it is more "lightweight" in reality than in reputation. The nature of magazine publishing I suppose (and maybe artificially raised expectations).

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
DBE
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow