Photographer
MamboPhoto
Posts: 2218
Aylesbury, England, United Kingdom
ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote: The more the better. . I am sure 100MP or 120MP will be here soon.. 200MP is already here... Hasselblad. Keep up.....
Photographer
SAG Photography
Posts: 2797
Valencia, California, US
MamboPhoto wrote: 200MP is already here... Hasselblad. Keep up..... Yeah but that is for static shooting only right now. I hear LEAF is working on 120 & 160 backs....
Photographer
Leggy Mountbatten
Posts: 12562
Kansas City, Missouri, US
K E S L E R wrote: Okay Cool, was gonna say, shooting at 36MP all the time must suck haha. Especially if Nikon has limited the CF slot like they did with the D4. The fastest CF card Rob Galbraith tested in the D4 hits 61 MB/s. The same card in the Mk III is 80 MB/s; 30% faster. With those giant D800 files, that's less than a picture a second on the fastest card available, assuming they didn't give the D800 a faster CF card slot than the D4.
Photographer
A_Nova_Photography
Posts: 8652
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, US
PStudios wrote: this is bull crap dam, who cares about iso 12,800 canon nikon plays all you suckers every year. Photojournalists... Sports photographers... Wedding photographers... The bulk of the pros out there!
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: Especially if Nikon has limited the CF slot like they did with the D4. The fastest CF card Rob Galbraith tested in the D4 hits 61 MB/s. The same card in the Mk III is 80 MB/s; 30% faster. With those giant D800 files, that's less than a picture a second on the fastest card available, assuming they didn't give the D800 a faster CF card slot than the D4. We don't know the answer to that yet, do we? The D800 supports USB3 when the D4 is only USB2. It could have a faster bus, which in turn could support faster CF cards.
Photographer
MC Grain
Posts: 1647
New York, New York, US
PStudios wrote: this is bull crap dam, who cares about iso 12,800 canon nikon plays all you suckers every year. My entire port is shot at 12,800.
Photographer
Leggy Mountbatten
Posts: 12562
Kansas City, Missouri, US
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: Especially if Nikon has limited the CF slot like they did with the D4. The fastest CF card Rob Galbraith tested in the D4 hits 61 MB/s. The same card in the Mk III is 80 MB/s; 30% faster. With those giant D800 files, that's less than a picture a second on the fastest card available, assuming they didn't give the D800 a faster CF card slot than the D4. ei Total Productions wrote: We don't know the answer to that yet, do we? The D800 supports USB3 when the D4 is only USB2. It could have a faster bus, which in turn could support faster CF cards. Indeed we don't. I found myself wondering whether Nikon crippled the CF slot in the D4 to encourage photographers to buy XQD cards.
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6427
Los Angeles, California, US
Phil Drinkwater wrote: And that's the point - to you those are most important. To others less so. I thought it was a real low point in the review. However a good body makes it a much smoother process. Good viewfinder and good autofocus are all valuable to doing a good job.
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6427
Los Angeles, California, US
MamboPhoto wrote: 200MP is already here... Hasselblad. Keep up..... And the piezo sensor shifter needs to be tuned again and again.... Plus you can only do static work at 200MP
Photographer
byebyemm222
Posts: 1458
ADAK, Alaska, US
rfordphotos wrote: dont think that is correct, unless I am misunderstanding the question. D800: (stills) FX format (36 x 24): 7,360 x 4,912 (L), 5,520 x 3,680 (M), 3,680 x 2,456 (S) 1.2x (30 x 20): 6,144 x 4,080 (L), 4,608 x 3,056 (M), 3,072 x 2,040 (S) DX format (24 x 16): 4,800 x 3,200 (L), 3,600 x 2,400 (M), 2,400 x 1,600 (S) 5:4 (30 x 24): 6,144 x 4,912 (L), 4,608 x 3,680 (M), 3,072 x 2,456 (S) FX-format photographs taken in movie live view*: 6,720 x 3,776 (L), 5,040 x 2,832 (M), 3,360 x 1,888 (S) DX-format photographs taken in movie live view*: 4,800 x 2,704 (L), 3,600 x 2,024 (M), 2,400 x 1,352 (S) * Photographs taken in movie live view have an aspect ratio of 16:9; A DX-based format is used for photographs taken using the DX (24 x 16) image area; an FX-based format is used for all other photographs Isn't that JPEG though? Or can you capture RAW in all those file sizes?
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: Especially if Nikon has limited the CF slot like they did with the D4. The fastest CF card Rob Galbraith tested in the D4 hits 61 MB/s. The same card in the Mk III is 80 MB/s; 30% faster. With those giant D800 files, that's less than a picture a second on the fastest card available, assuming they didn't give the D800 a faster CF card slot than the D4. ei Total Productions wrote: We don't know the answer to that yet, do we? The D800 supports USB3 when the D4 is only USB2. It could have a faster bus, which in turn could support faster CF cards. Leggy Mountbatten wrote: Indeed we don't. I found myself wondering whether Nikon crippled the CF slot in the D4 to encourage photographers to buy XQD cards. I stopped trying to divine the minds of these companies a long time ago. The marketing department works in mysterious ways.
Photographer
Leggy Mountbatten
Posts: 12562
Kansas City, Missouri, US
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: Indeed we don't. I found myself wondering whether Nikon crippled the CF slot in the D4 to encourage photographers to buy XQD cards. ei Total Productions wrote: I stopped trying to divine the minds of these companies a long time ago. The marketing department works in mysterious ways. Indeed. The Mk III is a speed demon with a fast CF card. But Canon decided to put a crippled SD card slot in the camera; there's no UHS support. The fastest SD card write speeds are 1/4 as fast as the fastest CF speeds. When I need speed, I'll turn off writing to both cards.
Photographer
Doobie the destroyer
Posts: 418
Kailua, Hawaii, US
Fred Greissing wrote: 14 bit or 16 bit ... that is the "container". It does not mean that it is filled using all the 16,384 steps per channel. From my experience with both 14 bit and 16 bit files the difference is not huge, but it is there. However a very good film scan at 16 bit better than the best 16 bit file from a camera CCD. It's a pretty noticeable difference to me, especially when I first started shooting on a Hassy, because I was screwing up the exposure, because the screens on them suck and I'm used to chimping. The margin of error on those files are pretty large, and I can recover like 2 1/2 stops with no loss in quality. I feel like I'm slumming it when I go back back to my other cameras. The difference is like ground beef to steak. Although, yeah a good drum scanner will get a better quality file. With a 6x7 film and some scanning skill you can probably get a better file with more resolution than an IQ180. I definitely don't disagree with that.
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 8866
Antioch, California, US
rfordphotos wrote: D800: (stills) FX format (36 x 24): 7,360 x 4,912 (L), 5,520 x 3,680 (M), 3,680 x 2,456 (S) 1.2x (30 x 20): 6,144 x 4,080 (L), 4,608 x 3,056 (M), 3,072 x 2,040 (S) DX format (24 x 16): 4,800 x 3,200 (L), 3,600 x 2,400 (M), 2,400 x 1,600 (S) 5:4 (30 x 24): 6,144 x 4,912 (L), 4,608 x 3,680 (M), 3,072 x 2,456 (S) [[[[[[[snipped]]]]]]]]]] curiosa des yeux wrote: Isn't that JPEG though? Or can you capture RAW in all those file sizes? As far as I know it is 12 or 14 bit raw, lossless compressed, compressed or uncompressed, 8 bit tiffs, and 3 speeds of jpgs.
Photographer
Andrew Somers
Posts: 1041
Los Angeles, California, US
Fred Greissing wrote: 14 bit or 16 bit ... that is the "container". It does not mean that it is filled using all the 16,384 steps per channel. From my experience with both 14 bit and 16 bit files the difference is not huge, but it is there. However a very good film scan at 16 bit better than the best 16 bit file from a camera CCD. Probably due to the LOG nature of film density, and also the nature of/bit depth of the CCD scanner's or sensor's A/D converter. If the scanner/sensor has only a 12 bit analog to digital converter on it, there will only be 12 bits of image "data" once put into a 16 bit container. But 12 bits of image data in LOG will likely have perceptually greater dynamic range than 12 bits linear. Typical film scanners use a CCD element to scan. But film negative is not a linear representation of light in the scene. Film density is essentially a LOG representation of the linear light in a scene. A CCD scan of film density creates a linear digital file of the film's density, which is thus (for all intents and purposes) a LOG file of the scene's light. A camera CCD creates (in terms of RAW) a linear digital file of the scene's linear light. As it happens, LOG is a more efficient way to store/record the linear light in a scene (relative to how we perceive light as humans). A data file that uses a linear encoding store/record light values needs significantly more bits to accurately cover the same dynamic range. In the motion picture industry, we traditionally use a 10 bit container for image data scanned from film, with the data in that container being LOG relative to the light in the scene. That DPX LOG file though is actually a linear representation of the negative's density. To linearize that 10 bit log data, we go into a much greater working depth (such as 16 bit).Today most compositing programs linearize to 32 bit floating point working space. Nevertheless, the final output is still commonly 10 bit LOG DPX for DI and/or recording back to film. (There is movement in the industry to use EXR, a 16 bit floating-point linear format for interchange - this provides 1024 steps *per stop*, with 30 stops dynamic range).
Photographer
Phil Drinkwater
Posts: 4814
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
Fred Greissing wrote: However a good body makes it a much smoother process. Good viewfinder and good autofocus are all valuable to doing a good job. Again, these are subjective points. If you use manual focussing or just need slow focussing in studio, AF isn't important. A good viewfinder isn't important to everyone either. As I said, IMO it was a real low point of the article and I think it lost credibility at that point. Otherwise it was interesting, but to suggest that the number one point about a camera system is the sensor is missing the point for a large amount of photographers. To me there are much more important elements than the minute differences between sensors - handling characteristics, AF performance, how it feels after I've held it for 10 hours and especially lenses ... those are extremely important. Your photography will require a different set of criteria. The BIF photographers will require a different set of criteria. It's not just one size fits all - that's why different systems exist. In some ways the D800 is a slightly niche product. It's not a great "general" camera since it doesn't offer lower res RAW (as far as I understand it? I still don't understand why they don't..) and wedding and event photographers will quickly tire of 50Mb files when they're scaling them down to 13-20Mp to give to clients and it's a bit slow on fps. However, it's very good at doing some specific jobs - studio and landscape being the two obvious jobs. That doesn't make it better or worse - just better at some and worse at others. That's my complaint about the article - it was written without that understanding. There isn't a single camera on the market which covers everything and is best for everything - and if one was released it'd be incredibly expensive and that would limit it's usefulness
Photographer
Leighsphotos
Posts: 3070
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
c_h_r_i_s wrote: Agreed but people are starting to fall into the trap of put the camera first...' I can't shoot XYZ because my camera doesn't have the latest gimmick'. That's a good thing. It's how we draw a line in the sand to show our clients the difference between someone with a camera, and a photographer. I come from the business world where every executive I know has a 5D II..because they can. My wife's boss (CFO) has one along with a 24-70L..to take pics of his kids.
Photographer
ShutterSpeedPhotography
Posts: 186
Tempe, Arizona, US
This is so stupid, why does everyone care so much about how less noisy a camera is at 12,800 ISO when you shouldn't be shooting over 800
Photographer
Leggy Mountbatten
Posts: 12562
Kansas City, Missouri, US
MB PHotographey wrote: This is so stupid, why does everyone care so much about how less noisy a camera is at 12,800 ISO when you shouldn't be shooting over 800 Who says I shouldn't be shooting over 800? I'd say 2/3 of my shots are over 800. I guess that doesn't meet with your approval.
Photographer
A_Nova_Photography
Posts: 8652
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, US
MB PHotographey wrote: This is so stupid, why does everyone care so much about how less noisy a camera is at 12,800 ISO when you shouldn't be shooting over 800 Says whom? I can prove you wrong....
Photographer
Mike Haftel
Posts: 207
Detroit, Michigan, US
MC Grain wrote: My entire port is shot at 12,800. Why?
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15973
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
Mike Haftel wrote: Why? Pppfftt easy the sun never shines in Kansas and they don't have electricity for lighting.
Photographer
MC Grain
Posts: 1647
New York, New York, US
MB PHotographey wrote: This is so stupid, why does everyone care so much about how less noisy a camera is at 12,800 ISO when you shouldn't be shooting over 800 Because there are photos that can't be shot any other way. ISO aside, certainly you must realize that the presence of lights changes your interaction with the subject and that what you get from the subject will be different with and without lights, right?
Photographer
MC Grain
Posts: 1647
New York, New York, US
Mike Haftel wrote: Why? Because it results in a specific look and I want to be able to shoot the models in this specific location with this specific lighting because of how it affects what they do. You're certainly welcome to have the opinion that none of the photos in my port were worth creating, but none of these could have been shot and come out the way they did in a studio with strobes.
Photographer
ShutterSpeedPhotography
Posts: 186
Tempe, Arizona, US
At the end of the day the sensor and lens matter. If you have a fast lens then you don't need to shoot at such a high ISO...
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3846
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Fred Greissing wrote: Good detail into the blacks is like the foundation of good image quality. Word.
MB PHotographey wrote: If you have a fast lens then you don't need to shoot at such a high ISO... Unless you are wanting a specific DOF and thus can't shoot at wide open apertures. Sometimes that "fast" f1.4 lens doesn't do any good, if you're shooting at f16 for a certain required DOF...and you have to still sync with your flash at 1/200 or so. Then it's all about NOISELESS high ISO.
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 8866
Antioch, California, US
MB PHotographey wrote: This is so stupid, why does everyone care so much about how less noisy a camera is at 12,800 ISO when you shouldn't be shooting over 800 ah shit, I must have missed the memo. Maybe what you meant to say was YOU shouldnt be shooting over 800 ? Dont be so rigid in your thinking, learn the "rules" then learn to break them at the right times, for the right reasons. You will be amazed at what becomes possible.
Photographer
byebyemm222
Posts: 1458
ADAK, Alaska, US
MB PHotographey wrote: At the end of the day the sensor and lens matter. If you have a fast lens then you don't need to shoot at such a high ISO... So when you show up to a dimly lit sports arena to shoot some hockey, you'll be satisfied with the blurry images you'll get at f2.8, 1/60th at ISO 800? You'll be alone in that assessment I'm sure. ISO 12,800 would mean that you could shoot at f4, 1/500th and get some extremely sharp images with acceptable degrees of noise. I say f4 instead of f2.8 because at f2.8 the DOF is often too shallow to keep the subject in focus in those circumstance. The main reason for shoot f2.8 is that up until now, you really didn't have much choice in the matter to maintain a reasonable shutter speed. Now, you could have greater DOF, enough to keep most of the subject in focus, plus the ability to choose less expensive and lighter weight lenses such as the 70-200mm f4L or utilize an extender on a 200mm f2.8 or 300mm f2.8 for an effective f4. The capabilities that relatively clean ISO 12,800 files present are not insignificant and can result in completely different approaches to challenging situations where there were previously few solutions. At whatever point I buy either the mk3 or the d800 (still up in the air about it until I've handled them both), I'll definitely be utilizing ISO 12,800 when appropriate, which should be somewhat regularly.
Photographer
A_Nova_Photography
Posts: 8652
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, US
MB PHotographey wrote: At the end of the day the sensor and lens matter. If you have a fast lens then you don't need to shoot at such a high ISO... Tell that to all the sports photographers, photojournalists and wedding photographers out there.... You really don't know what you're talking about....
Photographer
Mike Haftel
Posts: 207
Detroit, Michigan, US
c_h_r_i_s wrote: Pppfftt easy the sun never shines in Kansas and they don't have electricity for lighting. Unfortunately, I lived in Kansas for about five or six years. If it wasn't the tornados that got ya, it was the high ISO noise. It was everywhere. Grain and hot pixels all around us. The horror of it all.
MC Grain wrote: You're certainly welcome to have the opinion that none of the photos in my port were worth creating, but none of these could have been shot and come out the way they did in a studio with strobes. All I asked was why you were shooting at such high ISO. There was no sub-context as to the quality or worth of your work.
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15973
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
When some of the first digital backs came out and you'd be shooting cars in a studio using hot lights with exposures of 10 - 30 seconds the back would produce heat which inturn would show itself as noise. You'd have to use fans to keep the camera back cool. Today is light years away from those digital backs and it's oh sooo easy.
Photographer
Leighsphotos
Posts: 3070
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
LMAO...here it is...exactly what I pointed out. Listen to this guy talk about the new cameras at ISO 6400 at 14:00 minutes. Lot's of nonsense talk about hi ISO..but the general consensus is that most won't shoot beyond that. We all pixel peep, some way more than others...even though we say we don't. http://youtu.be/omTo7UxbJX8
Photographer
Leggy Mountbatten
Posts: 12562
Kansas City, Missouri, US
iseethelightman wrote: LMAO...here it is...exactly what I pointed out. Listen to this guy talk about the new cameras at ISO 6400 at 14:00 minutes. Lot's of nonsense talk about hi ISO..but the general consensus is that most won't shoot beyond that. Good. That'll help me stand out. I absolutely love the low light capability of the Mk III. It even focuses in shockingly low levels of light. A few examples at ISO 100000 and ISO 25000. http://stephen-melvin.tumblr.com/tagged/EOS-5D-Mk-III
Photographer
Leighsphotos
Posts: 3070
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: Good. That'll help me stand out. I absolutely love the low light capability of the Mk III. It even focuses in shockingly low levels of light. A few examples at ISO 100000 and ISO 25000. http://stephen-melvin.tumblr.com/tagged/EOS-5D-Mk-III well...let's hope so.
Photographer
Phil Drinkwater
Posts: 4814
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: Good. That'll help me stand out. I absolutely love the low light capability of the Mk III. It even focuses in shockingly low levels of light. A few examples at ISO 100000 and ISO 25000. http://stephen-melvin.tumblr.com/tagged/EOS-5D-Mk-III Gotta say - I kinda like those.
Photographer
Leggy Mountbatten
Posts: 12562
Kansas City, Missouri, US
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: Good. That'll help me stand out. I absolutely love the low light capability of the Mk III. It even focuses in shockingly low levels of light. A few examples at ISO 100000 and ISO 25000. http://stephen-melvin.tumblr.com/tagged/EOS-5D-Mk-III Phil Drinkwater wrote: Gotta say - I kinda like those. Thanks. I've been pleased with the camera so far. I feel like I could even sell photos taken at ISO 100K with this camera.
Photographer
Phil Drinkwater
Posts: 4814
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: Leggy Mountbatten wrote: Good. That'll help me stand out. I absolutely love the low light capability of the Mk III. It even focuses in shockingly low levels of light. A few examples at ISO 100000 and ISO 25000. http://stephen-melvin.tumblr.com/tagged/EOS-5D-Mk-III Thanks. I've been pleased with the camera so far. I feel like I could even sell photos taken at ISO 100K with this camera. They do have a nice art quality to them for sure..
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Mike Haftel wrote: Why? Why not! I shot photos at 3200 ISO recently.
|