Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 1, 2006, 9:40 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I some times stay up too late posting and make similar mistakes. Not a problem.

I wouldn't be surprised if the phase one's output was truly noise free. I bet you could find an example of an image taking with a phase one on their web page. Personally, I've never knowingly seen one. My friend who also shoots medium format was thinking he'd buy a phase one a few years back... but the Canon 1Ds Mk II came out and now he's thinking about getting it. He also wants more Canon experience (he's shot nikon his entire life) because most of the big studios in New York use Canon. The resolution of that Canon isn't as good as the medium format back, but its better than the D2x that he uses.

At one time I had more money in the camera gear I reguarly carry than in the value of my car. I have since had to replace that car and its no longer true... but eventually it will be. Cars loose value faster than camera gear (assuming you buy correctly.)

The comment about being too noise free reminds me of an article about the photography in sports illistrated. How their switch to digital cameras and the lack of grain/noise in the images really changed the look of the magazine.

Personally, I'd rather have a clean image and put some noise in using photoshop than have to take it away and have to risk loosing detail when you remove it.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 2, 2006, 12:03 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

eric s wrote:
Quote:
I some times stay up too late posting and make similar mistakes. Not a problem.

I wouldn't be surprised if the phase one's output was truly noise free. I bet you could find an example of an image taking with a phase one on their web page. Personally, I've never knowingly seen one. My friend who also shoots medium format was thinking he'd buy a phase one a few years back... but the Canon 1Ds Mk II came out and now he's thinking about getting it. He also wants more Canon experience (he's shot nikon his entire life) because most of the big studios in New York use Canon. The resolution of that Canon isn't as good as the medium format back, but its better than the D2x that he uses.

At one time I had more money in the camera gear I reguarly carry than in the value of my car. I have since had to replace that car and its no longer true... but eventually it will be. Cars loose value faster than camera gear (assuming you buy correctly.)

The comment about being too noise free reminds me of an article about the photography in sports illistrated. How their switch to digital cameras and the lack of grain/noise in the images really changed the look of the magazine.

Personally, I'd rather have a clean image and put some noise in using photoshop than have to take it away and have to risk loosing detail when you remove it.

Eric
Hiya Eric,

I too would rather go with a "noise free" image if possible. It's just that at the moment I can't afford to do so. 40k for a camera!!!??? Especially this early in "my game". I'm a novice just learning the ropes.

As for seeing a picture taken using a Phase One camera on the Phase One website...I believe they have a few. But looking at them on your LCD monitor and seeing a huge print are two different things.

As I said...I definitely do plan on attending some exhibits in the future to see how much better a picture is when taken using etiher a medium or large format camera...versus using a hi-end DSLR. Shot by highly experienced hands. Should be enlightening.

As for the Phase One digital back equipped cameras being "100% noise free"...I'd assume it is mostly true. I doubt Phase One would make such claims on their brochures if it wasn't true. I was just hoping to hear from forum members who know from experience (e.g. being a user) or have known people who have.

Any how, I think I'm dozing off again. Have a good weekend!

Btw...what do you shoot with these days? Curious.
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2006, 10:59 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I'm doing almost all my shooting with the Canon 1D MkIIN. It has more noise than the 20D (ya, odd... but true. At ISO200 I see more noise in skys than I did with the 20D) but it is so much better in other ways that it's worth it. It was expensive... and probably not worth the money.... but its close, let me tell you!

for lenses I'm almost always shooting with the Canon 600mm f4 IS and a teleconverter. Truly amazing lens. I love it. Its only problem is being too heavy (well, and too expensive.) But once you go there, you never want to go back. And I have an assortment of smaller lenses, like the 100-400.

I went to an Ansel Adams exhibit twice when it was in town. Seeing his prints, at the size they were intended, was just amazing. Books do not compare to a proper print. And I fully agree with you about seeing the print vs. looking at an LCD. They were just amazing. There is no way I could get that detail with my camera. I learned a lot from his work.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2006, 11:21 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

eric s wrote:
Quote:
I'm doing almost all my shooting with the Canon 1D MkIIN. It has more noise than the 20D (ya, odd... but true. At ISO200 I see more noise in skys than I did with the 20D) but it is so much better in other ways that it's worth it. It was expensive... and probably not worth the money.... but its close, let me tell you!

for lenses I'm almost always shooting with the Canon 600mm f4 IS and a teleconverter. Truly amazing lens. I love it. Its only problem is being too heavy (well, and too expensive.) But once you go there, you never want to go back. And I have an assortment of smaller lenses, like the 100-400.

I went to an Ansel Adams exhibit twice when it was in town. Seeing his prints, at the size they were intended, was just amazing. Books do not compare to a proper print. And I fully agree with you about seeing the print vs. looking at an LCD. They were just amazing. There is no way I could get that detail with my camera. I learned a lot from his work.

Eric
Hello Eric,

A 1D MarkII-N? Nice one!! And yes I am VERY surprised to know you found more noise on it than on your 20D. I still find it funny and interesting. But yeah I can see why you would want a MarkII-N. Being able to shoot 8.5 fps certainly comes in handy.

Do you have a website with a gallery of pictures shot with your MarkII-N? Love to have a look.

600mm lens? YIKES. Even in the brochures that things looks like a beast. But I'm sure it serves it's purpose. Along with a good tripod and your DSLR.

I'd love to see some of Ansel Adams' works live. Hope his works are brought to Toronto one of these days.

Take it easy.
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 3, 2006, 11:14 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I'm sure the Ansel Adams exhibit is a traveling one, but I don't know where it was supposed to go. I believe Boston was its first stop (where I saw it.) And it left in Feb of this year.

The 600 is a beast. I wish it didn't weight so much, but it does. I actually don't really notice it too much when I'm doing my normal hiking and shooting. But if I do much "up" (mountains, large hills) then I start to feel it.

Actually the 8.5fsp isn't that much of an advantage. In its place, there is exactly what you want. But often you don't need it. I normally shoot at 5fps. Fewer images to go thorugh. More often with birds (what I shoot) it is about getting that exact moment, and less about firing bursts. But give me that bird in flight, and I'm at 8.5 and firing 10-15 at a time.

The real advantage of the "N" is the better AF. It tracks better, and it focuses faster. It still hunts (more than I think it should) but normally it locks on faster. And that is key. I miss too many images with the 20D because it went the wrong way or didn't lock on in time. I could have learned to manuall focus to get it close (I know people who do) but I needed the "N" for my trip to florida. Its ability to track birds in flight was really helpful down there.

I think the "N" has more noise because its older tech than the 20D. I think the 20D was newer than the 1D MkII, and the N has basically that same sensor (so even though the body is "newer" the sensor isn't.) So Canon's advanced tech was able to overcome the advantages of the larger sensor in the "N".

You can see a mixed gallery of my best shots here:
http://esmith.marx7.org/galleries/Bi...2006/index.htm

All my florida shots were taken with the "N". If you go though them in order, the first shot with a 'gater is the start of the florida shots... from there to the end.

Eric


eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 1:24 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

eric s wrote:
Quote:
I'm sure the Ansel Adams exhibit is a traveling one, but I don't know where it was supposed to go. I believe Boston was its first stop (where I saw it.) And it left in Feb of this year.

The 600 is a beast. I wish it didn't weight so much, but it does. I actually don't really notice it too much when I'm doing my normal hiking and shooting. But if I do much "up" (mountains, large hills) then I start to feel it.

Actually the 8.5fsp isn't that much of an advantage. In its place, there is exactly what you want. But often you don't need it. I normally shoot at 5fps. Fewer images to go thorugh. More often with birds (what I shoot) it is about getting that exact moment, and less about firing bursts. But give me that bird in flight, and I'm at 8.5 and firing 10-15 at a time.

The real advantage of the "N" is the better AF. It tracks better, and it focuses faster. It still hunts (more than I think it should) but normally it locks on faster. And that is key. I miss too many images with the 20D because it went the wrong way or didn't lock on in time. I could have learned to manuall focus to get it close (I know people who do) but I needed the "N" for my trip to florida. Its ability to track birds in flight was really helpful down there.

I think the "N" has more noise because its older tech than the 20D. I think the 20D was newer than the 1D MkII, and the N has basically that same sensor (so even though the body is "newer" the sensor isn't.) So Canon's advanced tech was able to overcome the advantages of the larger sensor in the "N".

You can see a mixed gallery of my best shots here:
http://esmith.marx7.org/galleries/Bi...2006/index.htm

All my florida shots were taken with the "N". If you go though them in order, the first shot with a 'gater is the start of the florida shots... from there to the end.

Eric

Hello Eric,

Thanks for the information about the MarkII/N. Good to know. And when I do make the jump to a DSLR I'll most likely get a 30D or it's replacement. Not really sure I can justify the cost for the MarkII/N. It's more than double the cost of a 30D.

And for what? An extra 3.5 fps? Better AF tracking? Well actuallly having better AF tracking would be an asset but not at more than 50% more money IMHO. And perhaps the tracking is better on the 30D than on the 20D (shrugs...perhaps on the 40D). Better to spend less money on the camera body and the rest of the money (value of a MarkII/N) on 2 high quality L series lens with IS.

I'll keep an eye open for the "Ansel Adams Tour". Or check online later. Maybe it will come to Toronto.

Will take a look at your pics soon. Thanks for sharing.

Have a good week!

DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 11:59 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I fully agree with getting the 30D (or 40D when it comes out) over the N. Most people really don't need the difference in abilities that the "N" offers. And if you don't actually need it, then it's a waste of money. I wasn't going to get it, until the opportunity of going to Florida came up. And I got it because:

- I was finding I was missing shots that the N would help me get. I know several Pros who use the "N" and they agrees that it would help in those areas.
- It is much better at flight photography over the non-pro line. And action/flight shots are something that I love and planned on doing a lot of in Florida (unfortunately I didn't do as much as I hoped.) They are much more dynamic and interesting than a "bird on a stick" picture (for what I mean, check out: http://www.featheredfotos.com/ I know Garth, he is an amazing photographer, but after 20 of those images I start to get bored.)

I had the money saved (I'm very careful with my money. The issue wasn't if I could buy it, but if I should.) I passed on the 1D MkII, as I couldn't justify it. I knew it would help, but not enough. But Florida pushed me over the edge.

I completely agree with you about saving the money on the bodies and buying better lenses. That is *exactly* the right attitude. A lens will last you 20+ years and a camera body will probably last you 2 and then you'll sell it to help fund its replacement. Get a good solid camera that does what you want and buy good quality lenses that will last you a long time. They are a better investment.

I hope you like my images, feel free to give me your thoughts on them. I'm always looking to improve.

As an example, the last image in that entire gallery, of the skimmer flying by, is a shot I would never have gotten with the 20D. But I was able to with the MkII N.

Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn't also include the very deep RAW buffer on the N. I have missed images because I had filled the 20D's buffer. Not often, maybe 5-10 times a year (I go out twice a weekend, so that really isn't often) but those have the potential for being good shots by definition. If I'm shooting a burst it's because it's important. I don't do that whilly-nilly.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 1:51 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

eric s wrote:
Quote:
I fully agree with getting the 30D (or 40D when it comes out) over the N. Most people really don't need the difference in abilities that the "N" offers. And if you don't actually need it, then it's a waste of money. I wasn't going to get it, until the opportunity of going to Florida came up. And I got it because:

- I was finding I was missing shots that the N would help me get. I know several Pros who use the "N" and they agrees that it would help in those areas.
- It is much better at flight photography over the non-pro line. And action/flight shots are something that I love and planned on doing a lot of in Florida (unfortunately I didn't do as much as I hoped.) They are much more dynamic and interesting than a "bird on a stick" picture (for what I mean, check out: http://www.featheredfotos.com/ I know Garth, he is an amazing photographer, but after 20 of those images I start to get bored.)

I had the money saved (I'm very careful with my money. The issue wasn't if I could buy it, but if I should.) I passed on the 1D MkII, as I couldn't justify it. I knew it would help, but not enough. But Florida pushed me over the edge.

I completely agree with you about saving the money on the bodies and buying better lenses. That is *exactly* the right attitude. A lens will last you 20+ years and a camera body will probably last you 2 and then you'll sell it to help fund its replacement. Get a good solid camera that does what you want and buy good quality lenses that will last you a long time. They are a better investment.

I hope you like my images, feel free to give me your thoughts on them. I'm always looking to improve.

As an example, the last image in that entire gallery, of the skimmer flying by, is a shot I would never have gotten with the 20D. But I was able to with the MkII N.

Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn't also include the very deep RAW buffer on the N. I have missed images because I had filled the 20D's buffer. Not often, maybe 5-10 times a year (I go out twice a weekend, so that really isn't often) but those have the potential for being good shots by definition. If I'm shooting a burst it's because it's important. I don't do that whilly-nilly.

Eric
Hey Eric,

You bring up some excellent points on why one might consider the "N" over a 20D/30D. Forgot about the buffer. But, while the "N" can do 8.5 fps and more shots per burst I still am not sure I can justify the added cost. It would certainly be nice to have though. No doubt.

And while I can't really jusitfy the "N" right now it doesn't mean I won't still consider it. Reason being is that when I do pickup a DSLR I would rather spend a few extra dollars to get a DSLR that won't restrict me in any way.

Right now I'm shooting pretty much all types of photography. From portraits, landscapes, sports (e.g. Brazilian martial arts demos), to just snapshots and later travel photography. Having the abilities of the "N" available for sporting events would be terrific. You're more likely to get the money shot with 8.5 fps than not obvioiusly.

But we shall see. I'm still feeling my way around with my prosumer (Sony DSC-H1) camera. Learning the ropes. Will I later get a "50D"? Or will I go for the gusto and get the replacement for the "N"? Is any one's guess at this point.

And about your photo's...nice work! But if I had to say anything I would say that I preferred the photo's where there was more color. In the foreground (the bird) and the background. I find photo's that are too monotone to be a little boring (wildelife or portraits or landscapes...etc.). Other's might prefer it. I just find photo's with color to be more lively and warm. But this is just me.

You have a great attitude about welcoming criticism. I mean how else are we to improve right?

And back to DSLR's...honestly, I find the results from a Nikon D2X more pleasing. When ever I see picture galleries of shots taken with Nikon's I find the colors more vibrant and more detail in the pics. Compared to the shots taken with Canon's. Most of the time I do find the shots taken by Canon DSLR's to be a little more neutral (again some might prefer this look to their pictures) and less detailed. Almost "soft" as they would say.

Though, in some of your bird pictures, you have actually shown me that the Canon's are capable of producing pictures with a decent color pallet. Or better than I previously thought.

The D2X is also actually $500.00 CAD less than the "N". So if I were in the market for a hi-end DSLR I'd definitely be looking at those two cameras. Not an easy choice.

Nikon D2X= $500. 00 CAD less, more pleaseing colors, more detail BUT at high ISO details are lost at ISO 1600/3200, longer battery life (rated 2000 per charge...D2Xs rated at 3800..under Nikon lab conditions), fireware is now available giving the D2X most of the upgrades found in the newer D2Xs (good going Nikon!!).

Canon "N"= $500.00 more, 8.5 fps, larger buffer, handles details much better at ISO 1600-3200.

Ok better stop here.
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 9:33 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

If you keep talking like that, you're going to end up with one of those cameras!!

I find you comment about contrast interesting. Since any images you see on the web will definitely be edited, what you are seeing is almost certainly a trend in Canon vs. Nikon users and not the cameras. I can guarantee you that every shot in that gallery of mine is edited and the contrast was boosted. I have been accused of not making my images saturated enough... maybe that is what you're picking up on.

I have also been complemented on my images for how they represent the birds and plants "correctly". But that is more from some professional landscapers I know... their needs for my images are different that most. They care about being able to easily identify the plants and the birds in them and less about "art".

Hum... my under "saturation" probably plays directly into that. I'd never considered it before. The world, for the most part, is a lot less saturated than people like to see it in a photo. (at least it is where I photograph.)

Another thing you have to take into account is if you shoot with long lenses you will loose contrast. This isn't because of the lens (all the long lenses are multi-coated to improve contrast, among other things.) but because they are shooting through so much air. All the moisture, pollen & dust in the air reduce contrast. When I went from the 100-400 to the 600mm I found I had to boost contrast more. I was often shooting more distant subjects, which affected the image.

The D2x is a great camera, you wouldn't go wrong with either it or the N. Both Canon & Nikon make many top knotch lenses so as long as you choose carefully, you'll do well there too. When you finally step up to a DSLR realize that you are buying into a full camera system. Consider it as a whole (you are already looking at many aspects of the camera, which is good.) For example, many of the really wide Canon lenses are not very good (including the expensive 17-40 f4 L, some samples are good, others suffer badly at 17mm.) If you really want to do wide angle work, consider a Sigma lens (they make some good wide angles) or look at the quality of Nikon's wides.

I hadn't heard that battery life for the Nikon. Looks like they improved on the D100's amazing battery life. That is cool. I get at least 1000 with my N (and I use IS all the time) but I couldn't tell you how many, really. Way more than my 20D got (@ around 400.)
Maybe the prices are different where you live ,but they aren't right where I'm looking. At www.bhphoto.com (the most reputable store I know) says:
1D MkII N – 3,539.95 (USD)
D2x s – 4,699.96 (USD)
D2x - 4399.95 – $500 rebate = 3,899.95 (USD)
That makes the N 1,200 (USD) cheaper than the D2x s and 300 cheaper than the D2 while the rebate lasts.
Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2006, 11:38 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

eric s wrote:
Quote:
If you keep talking like that, you're going to end up with one of those cameras!!

I find you comment about contrast interesting. Since any images you see on the web will definitely be edited, what you are seeing is almost certainly a trend in Canon vs. Nikon users and not the cameras. I can guarantee you that every shot in that gallery of mine is edited and the contrast was boosted. I have been accused of not making my images saturated enough... maybe that is what you're picking up on.

I have also been complemented on my images for how they represent the birds and plants "correctly". But that is more from some professional landscapers I know... their needs for my images are different that most. They care about being able to easily identify the plants and the birds in them and less about "art".

Hum... my under "saturation" probably plays directly into that. I'd never considered it before. The world, for the most part, is a lot less saturated than people like to see it in a photo. (at least it is where I photograph.)

Another thing you have to take into account is if you shoot with long lenses you will loose contrast. This isn't because of the lens (all the long lenses are multi-coated to improve contrast, among other things.) but because they are shooting through so much air. All the moisture, pollen & dust in the air reduce contrast. When I went from the 100-400 to the 600mm I found I had to boost contrast more. I was often shooting more distant subjects, which affected the image.

The D2x is a great camera, you wouldn't go wrong with either it or the N. Both Canon & Nikon make many top knotch lenses so as long as you choose carefully, you'll do well there too. When you finally step up to a DSLR realize that you are buying into a full camera system. Consider it as a whole (you are already looking at many aspects of the camera, which is good.) For example, many of the really wide Canon lenses are not very good (including the expensive 17-40 f4 L, some samples are good, others suffer badly at 17mm.) If you really want to do wide angle work, consider a Sigma lens (they make some good wide angles) or look at the quality of Nikon's wides.

I hadn't heard that battery life for the Nikon. Looks like they improved on the D100's amazing battery life. That is cool. I get at least 1000 with my N (and I use IS all the time) but I couldn't tell you how many, really. Way more than my 20D got (@ around 400.)
Maybe the prices are different where you live ,but they aren't right where I'm looking. At http://www.bhphoto.com (the most reputable store I know) says:
1D MkII N – 3,539.95 (USD)
D2x s – 4,699.96 (USD)
D2x - 4399.95 – $500 rebate = 3,899.95 (USD)
That makes the N 1,200 (USD) cheaper than the D2x s and 300 cheaper than the D2 while the rebate lasts.
Eric
Hiya Eric,

Heh, never thought of that. That you might have boosted the color saturation. Or that some people even wanted you to boost it even more. Go figure.

And you may be right. The more I talk about the D2X and N cameras the more likely that is the direction I'm going to go when I do go when I do get my first DSLR. And who do I have to blame for this? (wink)

About the pricing...that's interesting. In the US the N is actually $300 USD less than the D2X (and $1200.00 USD less than the D2Xs). Perhaps when the time comes I might be making a trip to NYC to pick up a "1D Mark3 N"

Based on your numbers I would be saving myself a little over $1000.00 CAD on the N (a N for the cost of a 5D...NICE!!), $500.00 CAD on the D2X ($4500 CAD) and only a few dollars CAD if I went for the D2Xs. Hmmmm...

Any ways, while it's good to know, I won't be buying for at least 1-2 years.

Oh and about your pictures...I too would prefer an accurate depiction. Assuming you're not doing "digital art". What I like in a picture is good composition, framing, detail, sharpness, properly exposed, and some color. Of course before all that you need to have an eye for the money shot. Not every one has that. So we end up with more people just taking snapshots.

In any event, thanks for the heads up about the pricing. Something to keep in mind for that special day. Actually, when it comes to electronics made in Japan, you guys get a better deal overall. Home Theater gear included. But at least in that area we Canucks are able to put out some good products.

Take it easy.
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:08 PM.