Reading mode: Light Dark

Its not the camera

Go to last post
Kerry, does that mean you're shooting a Nikon now?

Nosy people want to know ;)

Cherilyn
Kerry Pierce said:
Harry Behret said:
Kerry,

If I just had that new camera I would be the second coming of Ansel
Adams.
Click to expand...
Ain't that the truth...

Well, if you get the hankerin for a change of scenery and decide to
shoot D.C. within the next couple of months, drop me a note. I'll
be here until June and could use some pointers on how to shoot a
Nikon.... :-).

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Click to expand...
 
Well they test with a bit less resolution on a resolution chart, just for starters.

If you shoot with RAW on the 828 you will see how much resolution the camera really has. If you crop a 6MP dSLR to a 3:4 ratio like the 828, you will have a 5 - 5.5MP image at the same aspect ratio. I suspect the antialiasing filters on the 6MP cameras are making a bit of difference, too.

The noise difference can be compensated for by combining exposures when shooting landscape.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/featured_art&page=1
 
Since I recently posted about my 10D acquisition, I may be one of the "somebody's" that you're referring to Harry. No offense intended, I'm sure, and no offense taken. But, I haven't said I'm "going to be better" as a photographer now that I have a DSLR. And I don't recall Andy or anyone else who has recently acquired a DSLR saying something similar. Just that a DSLR creative control.

To expand, in my case, the 10D plus fast primes give me (1) greatly improved ability to "capture the moment" with significantly faster AF and shutter lag (and capturing the moment is a challenge when shooting highly mobile toddlers); (2) more opportunities for low-light, available light photography; and (3) relatively noise free images with a creamy color that I've seen less often on my F717.

Now, I'm not bashing my F717. It's allowed me to take some wonderful images--images that are priceless for my wife and I (and I hope, our child when she grows up). And it's live preview helped me tremendously as a photographer. And it has an infrared mode that's great for capturing sleeping babies in the dark. And it has a video mode. And, it's introduced me to the best forum on the planet.

But the F717 has its limits, and I've found the creative possibilities and quality coming from the 10D to be worth its weight and price over the F717. Of course, more creative possibilities means more room for error, which I think I prove every day with the 10D. But, in the end, it is all about image quality. And I don't think I could have gotten the shot below with the F717 that I got with my 10D plus 35mm f/1.4L. Note in particular the very thin DOF and available lighting and high ISO (without any noise reduction). I feel fortunate I could afford to get the new equipment that I have, and would encourage those wanting a DSLR to save up. It's well worth it.

Cheers,
Joe



(1/180s f/1.4 at iso400)
Harry Behret said:
Hi all,

I've been noticing some talk about how somebody's shots are going
to be better now that he/she has a DSLR. It just ain't so. Cameras
are fine tools and each has their own strengths and weqknesses. In
the end its the photographer who makes the shot with his/hers
skills (or in my case the lack of said skills). I've been shooting
with a DSLR and a 717 for a while know and when I review my shots I
have to check the exif data to see which camera took which shot.
For some reason the shots I like the best were taken with the 717.
My shots that won a POTD and the reflections Exhibition challenge
were taken with my 717 not my D100.

Harry
--
http://www.pbase.com/hpb

'We don't make a photograph just with a camera; we bring to the act
of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen,
the music we have heard, the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/joeschmoe
 
Please overlook the grammatical errors and word omissions. It's late, and I've been tending to a teething baby. :)
JoeSchmoe said:
To expand, in my case, the 10D plus fast primes give me (1) greatly
improved ability to "capture the moment" with significantly faster
AF and shutter lag (and capturing the moment is a challenge when
shooting highly mobile toddlers); (2) more opportunities for
low-light, available light photography; and (3) relatively noise
free images with a creamy color that I've seen less often on my
F717.

Now, I'm not bashing my F717. It's allowed me to take some
wonderful images--images that are priceless for my wife and I (and
I hope, our child when she grows up). And it's live preview helped
me tremendously as a photographer. And it has an infrared mode
that's great for capturing sleeping babies in the dark. And it has
a video mode. And, it's introduced me to the best forum on the
planet.

But the F717 has its limits, and I've found the creative
possibilities and quality coming from the 10D to be worth its
weight and price over the F717. Of course, more creative
possibilities means more room for error, which I think I prove
every day with the 10D. But, in the end, it is all about image
quality. And I don't think I could have gotten the shot below with
the F717 that I got with my 10D plus 35mm f/1.4L. Note in
particular the very thin DOF and available lighting and high ISO
(without any noise reduction). I feel fortunate I could afford to
get the new equipment that I have, and would encourage those
wanting a DSLR to save up. It's well worth it.

Cheers,
Joe



(1/180s f/1.4 at iso400)
Harry Behret said:
Hi all,

I've been noticing some talk about how somebody's shots are going
to be better now that he/she has a DSLR. It just ain't so. Cameras
are fine tools and each has their own strengths and weqknesses. In
the end its the photographer who makes the shot with his/hers
skills (or in my case the lack of said skills). I've been shooting
with a DSLR and a 717 for a while know and when I review my shots I
have to check the exif data to see which camera took which shot.
For some reason the shots I like the best were taken with the 717.
My shots that won a POTD and the reflections Exhibition challenge
were taken with my 717 not my D100.

Harry
--
http://www.pbase.com/hpb

'We don't make a photograph just with a camera; we bring to the act
of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen,
the music we have heard, the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/joeschmoe
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/joeschmoe
 
Oh, I should add that another advantage of the 10D is more post-processing latitude. It's a trade-off from in-camera processing with the F717, but I find the trade-off to be a positive one. For example, I have much finer control over sharpening, and can sharpen much more without seeing artifacts. And I can also lighten underexposed images better without exposing noise.

Okay, I'll stop responding to myself now . . .
JoeSchmoe said:
To expand, in my case, the 10D plus fast primes give me (1) greatly
improved ability to "capture the moment" with significantly faster
AF and shutter lag (and capturing the moment is a challenge when
shooting highly mobile toddlers); (2) more opportunities for
low-light, available light photography; and (3) relatively noise
free images with a creamy color that I've seen less often on my
F717.

Cheers,
Joe



(1/180s f/1.4 at iso400)
Click to expand...
 
Hi Joe,

No bait was put out and I was not referring to any individual(s). I was addressing a mind set that "better" equpment makes us better photographers.

I have no axe to grind against DSLRs, hey I have one and enjoy using it. I know the advantages a DSLR has over the 717/828 but I also know that the 717/828 has advantages over a DSLR also.

I have looked over my 717 and D100 shots and I was surprised to find that my "best" shots had been taken with the 717. Does that mean the 717 is a "better" camera? Absolutely not.

Photography is about composition, light, shadows, colors, shapes, etc. Its an attempt to capture what we think we see. The best tool to do that with varys with the individual. For some it can be a DSLR but for others it may be a different tool. I think too often we discuss the technological aspects of photography (pixels, noise, CA, etc) and give too little thought to the ,IMHO, more important aspects of our "art". Many of us, myself included, would become better photographers by investing more in learning about the basics of the art than they would in the acqusition of more stuff.

Harry

--
http://www.pbase.com/hpb

'We don't make a photograph just with a camera; we bring to the act of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen, the music we have heard, the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams
 
So should I say with disposable cameras or what. I was going for a 1Ds but now you tell me I still need an eye for a shot. Awww heck. Guess I won't bother now :-)) :-))

Danny.

-------------------------------------------------

Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself. Disposable cameras rule !!!!
.................................................
http://www.macrophotos.com
 
hey danny,

I wish I had one of those. I would really be a good photgrapher then. ;-)

Harry
nzmacro said:
--
Click to expand...
http://www.pbase.com/hpb

'We don't make a photograph just with a camera; we bring to the act of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen, the music we have heard, the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams
 
The 1Ds will only make you hmmm just ok. A 645 would make you hmmm sort of alright, then a Hasslebladder thingy on a ladder would make you even betterrrererrr :-)), now a 8x10 would make you darn good........getting close. If you had a 20ft x 16ft you could also be the proud owner of a Mac truck as well and be bleeding FANTASTIC :-))

Ha, thanks Harry, I needed that, LOL.

Danny.

-------------------------------------------------

Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself. Disposable cameras rule !!!!
.................................................
http://www.macrophotos.com
 
You should be aware that the ability to resolve high-contrast black lines on a white background is not the whole story regarding detail and cameras. A much more useful real-world ability for a camera is the ability to distinguish and resolve minute tonal changes in real world scenes. And here, dslrs, with their high inter-pixel contrast and better light-gathering ability per pixel, come out ahead.

I also don't quite understand why you would suggest cropping the smaller MP image to match the image aspect ratio of the larger for comparison. Better would be to crop down the 828 shot to match the 6MP output and look at those. A larger image is not neccessarily a more detailed image.

As far as combining exposures to reduce noise- I agree with you. Just hope the wind doesn't blow, because the technique is close to useless for anything that moves. And detail-robbing noise is also a practically a non-issue in the 6MP dslrs we are talking about, so it's one less hassle to deal with on the road to better picture-making.

Brian
Matthew Cromer said:
Well they test with a bit less resolution on a resolution chart,
just for starters.

If you shoot with RAW on the 828 you will see how much resolution
the camera really has. If you crop a 6MP dSLR to a 3:4 ratio like
the 828, you will have a 5 - 5.5MP image at the same aspect ratio.
I suspect the antialiasing filters on the 6MP cameras are making a
bit of difference, too.

The noise difference can be compensated for by combining exposures
when shooting landscape.

--
my favorite work:
http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/featured_art&page=1
Click to expand...
--
Brian



Digital Image Gallery:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/Brian_Geldziler_Digital_Image_Gallery/index.htm
 
Cherilyn said:
Kerry, does that mean you're shooting a Nikon now?

Nosy people want to know ;)
Click to expand...
Hi Cherilyn,

It looks like I soon will be. I have a bag full of new Nikon mount lenses with no body to put them on. :-) I ordered a D70, which is supposed to be in on Monday. Assuming that everything works, I should be a 2-fisted shooter like the rest of the guys soon. Hoping that the weather clears up nicely for the Cherry Blossom festival. I haven't taken a single shot since I've been here because of work and weather. :-(

I'm thinking of buying another 717 so I can convert one of them to IR. Only problem with that is that I don't have enough hands.... :-)

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
Hey Harry,

I realize you have no axe to grind against DSLRs. In fact, I appreciated your advice when I was considering the D70. And I enjoy your photography, regardless of equipment.

I just haven't seen any post which has displayed a mindset that better equipments makes us better photographers. Only (sometimes not so diplomatically put) better equipment gives us more capabilities (for better or worse).

I don't think we disagree then about your underlying premise. I just haven't come across the view that you're disputing.

Joe
Harry Behret said:
Hi Joe,

No bait was put out and I was not referring to any individual(s). I
was addressing a mind set that "better" equpment makes us better
photographers.

I have no axe to grind against DSLRs, hey I have one and enjoy
using it. I know the advantages a DSLR has over the 717/828 but I
also know that the 717/828 has advantages over a DSLR also.

I have looked over my 717 and D100 shots and I was surprised to
find that my "best" shots had been taken with the 717. Does that
mean the 717 is a "better" camera? Absolutely not.

Photography is about composition, light, shadows, colors, shapes,
etc. Its an attempt to capture what we think we see. The best tool
to do that with varys with the individual. For some it can be a
DSLR but for others it may be a different tool. I think too often
we discuss the technological aspects of photography (pixels, noise,
CA, etc) and give too little thought to the ,IMHO, more important
aspects of our "art". Many of us, myself included, would become
better photographers by investing more in learning about the basics
of the art than they would in the acqusition of more stuff.

Harry

--
http://www.pbase.com/hpb

'We don't make a photograph just with a camera; we bring to the act
of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen,
the music we have heard, the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/joeschmoe
 
Brian G. said:
You should be aware that the ability to resolve high-contrast black
lines on a white background is not the whole story regarding detail
and cameras. A much more useful real-world ability for a camera is
the ability to distinguish and resolve minute tonal changes in real
world scenes. And here, dslrs, with their high inter-pixel
contrast and better light-gathering ability per pixel, come out
ahead.
Click to expand...
Actually I find that both dSLRs and the 828 have much better fine tonal gradations than I can reproduce in print. Since I judge my images by how they print large, I'm very happy with the tonalities of the 828. Inter-pixel contrast is very good in RAW mode, although the jpegs show some defects here due to a new de-mosaicing algorithm required by the fourth color. I'm hoping they fix this in the firmware soon.
Brian G. said:
I also don't quite understand why you would suggest cropping the
smaller MP image to match the image aspect ratio of the larger for
comparison.
Click to expand...
Because I usually prefer a 3:4 or even a 4:5 aspect ratio for my landscape images (the only ones I tend to print really large).

Better would be to crop down the 828 shot to match the
Brian G. said:
6MP output and look at those. A larger image is not neccessarily a
more detailed image.
Click to expand...
Then I would have a 2:3 aspect ratio shot, which can look good for some horizontal landscapes, but usually looks really funny for verticals.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/featured_art&page=1
 
How very very cool! If I ever got another brand of digicam, it would certainly be a Nikon. The D70 looks sweet, I'll be very interested in seeing what you can do with it ... please show your work here on STF so I don't miss it!

And I'd be VERY interested in your experience with a converted 717; I don't think I could ever have the surgery done on my 717, which I kept, but I could get another as you are considering. But then, too, we'd be running out of hands and carrying around a backpack full of equipment. Makes those security checkpoints a real treat ;)

Good luck whichever way you go, I'll be watching for your posts!
Kerry Pierce said:
Cherilyn said:
Kerry, does that mean you're shooting a Nikon now?

Nosy people want to know ;)
Click to expand...
Hi Cherilyn,

It looks like I soon will be. I have a bag full of new Nikon mount
lenses with no body to put them on. :-) I ordered a D70, which is
supposed to be in on Monday. Assuming that everything works, I
should be a 2-fisted shooter like the rest of the guys soon.
Hoping that the weather clears up nicely for the Cherry Blossom
festival. I haven't taken a single shot since I've been here
because of work and weather. :-(

I'm thinking of buying another 717 so I can convert one of them to
IR. Only problem with that is that I don't have enough hands....
:-)

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Click to expand...
 
Cherilyn said:
How very very cool! If I ever got another brand of digicam, it
would certainly be a Nikon. The D70 looks sweet, I'll be very
interested in seeing what you can do with it ... please show your
work here on STF so I don't miss it!
Click to expand...
Thanks, Cherilyn. :-) I'll keep you posted on the d70, but to be honest, I don't think that the brand matters a great deal. I bought the camera based on the features that it had available for the price plus the considerations of the issues that I've seen with other bodies. A common theme for some dslr advocates is that you don't buy a camera, you buy a system. I don't believe that to be a significant issue. Good lenses are available for both Canon and Nikon and the other Nikon mount bodies. Both brands are good, so I made my purchase based on the features of the body that was available.
Cherilyn said:
And I'd be VERY interested in your experience with a converted 717;
Click to expand...
I'll be looking around for a good deal on a 717 close-out sale. Then I'll have it converted, hopefully by this summer.
Cherilyn said:
you are considering. But then,
too, we'd be running out of hands and carrying around a backpack
full of equipment.
Click to expand...
That's already an issue for me, as I knew it would be. I already have 4 lenses for the d70, plus the 717 in a backpack. A converted 717 would be just like another lens and cost about the same too....
Cherilyn said:
Good luck whichever way you go, I'll be watching for your posts!
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'll try not to disappoint. :-)
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
I do believe some shots are going to be better. Not because the camera is making them but because this camera, in the hands og a good photographer, will allow things the the F828 has difficuties to handle right. ISO800 for example. Ok you might say who needs it? maybe but sometimes I wish I had a noisless hight speed camera.

I believe that a good quality camera is even more important to the good photographer then it is to a bad one, who might not even know how to use it. Because if this was not the case, you would have stayed only with your 707 and Andy wouldn't have bought his 300D.

One thing is sure, it is not the camera that does the photo but it surely halps to achieve better ones...
Harry Behret said:
Hi all,

I've been noticing some talk about how somebody's shots are going
to be better now that he/she has a DSLR. It just ain't so. Cameras
are fine tools and each has their own strengths and weqknesses. In
the end its the photographer who makes the shot with his/hers
skills (or in my case the lack of said skills). I've been shooting
with a DSLR and a 717 for a while know and when I review my shots I
have to check the exif data to see which camera took which shot.
For some reason the shots I like the best were taken with the 717.
My shots that won a POTD and the reflections Exhibition challenge
were taken with my 717 not my D100.

Harry
--
http://www.pbase.com/hpb

'We don't make a photograph just with a camera; we bring to the act
of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen,
the music we have heard, the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams
Click to expand...
 
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