Camera purchase recommendations

[MWG]

Lets hear your retort.

 

[MWG]

SNIP> ...the Canon 1ds2. SNIP> There's "something" about the shots that come from this body that are truly unique and remarkable. The results are one of the most "film-like" digital cameras I've ever seen or used.

"Sisters":



One reason I prefer Canon, is because the photos always look natural; I never saw a shot from a Nikon that I didn't feel looked "digital" or computerized.

You've absolutely GOT to be kidding!!! Look at that horribly blown-out cheek area on the bottom baby, and the horribly blown-out nose and upper lip of the baby on top. Plus, the crude attempt to burn-in the hand of the baby on the top, to replace the blown-out white areas that should have been the edge of the hand. If ever there was a photo that screamed "digital shot", this is that photo; the way the highlight values are bright, and then simply "blow out" to detail-less, paper-white, over 255--yuck! This image exhibits limited,crude tonality, meaning basically three tonal values; very light gray, extremely light gray, and then an immediate transition to TOTALLY blown-out, detail-less white. This image illustrates the quintessential FAILURE of digital capture: highlight values that go up,and then abruptly clip to detail-less white. There is no B&W film I've ever shot (Tri-X, Tri-X Pan Professional, Plus-X, Panatomic X,T-Max 100, T-Max 400, Verichrome Pan, HP-4, HP-5) that would render the highest tonal values as shabbily as this Canon 1Ds Mark II's digital capture does. This image is a weak example of a "digital" image, and it's about as far from a "film-like image" as one could hope to have to suffer through.

The clipped highlights, and the narrow tonal range shown both serve to make this a poor and "digital-appearing" image. Even the worst B&W film has a shoulder area that handles different highlight densities without clipping suddenly, just above extremely light gray; this capture has no shoulder whatsoever, and clips right to oblivion after the extremely light grays. This image is a massive failure as an attempt to show what a "film-like" high key image actually looks like.

ROFLMMFAO!!!!!!!! I read about ONE line of your post, then ignored the rest, you UGLY, four-eyed, hating FREAK! You only WISH you could create such a beautiful portrait of two little girls as this. Do you have any idea how many people have said this is the best baby portrait they've ever seen?

Your HATE wouldn't have anything to do with your online buddy "Sabrina-O" woudl it? LOL@YOU!!

You don't even POST photos on here and you aren't even good enough to have a web site - you are PATHETIC!

GET RREEAL! LMAO@YOU!!!!!!!!!!! You only WISH you could create anything even LIKE this!

And sabrina, you have caught ENOUGH hell for your HORRIBLE, atrocious, piece of crap "photos" by MANY others on this forum, on several threads. So don't even make me post up some of your trash!!

Cats out the bag.

Funny thing is, i can actually picture you behind your computer desk getting all bent out of shape. Quite funny if i must say so myself.

You need to be medicated doggie, heavily.

 

[Hardrock]

and it begins...

if I could only find that stupid popcorn smiley!

 

[SabrinaO]

You've absolutely GOT to be kidding!!! Look at that horribly blown-out cheek area on the bottom baby, and the horribly blown-out nose and upper lip of the baby on top. Plus, the crude attempt to burn-in the hand of the baby on the top, to replace the blown-out white areas that should have been the edge of the hand. If ever there was a photo that screamed "digital shot", this is that photo; the way the highlight values are bright, and then simply "blow out" to detail-less, paper-white, over 255--yuck! This image exhibits limited,crude tonality, meaning basically three tonal values; very light gray, extremely light gray, and then an immediate transition to TOTALLY blown-out, detail-less white. This image illustrates the quintessential FAILURE of digital capture: highlight values that go up,and then abruptly clip to detail-less white. There is no B&W film I've ever shot (Tri-X, Tri-X Pan Professional, Plus-X, Panatomic X,T-Max 100, T-Max 400, Verichrome Pan, HP-4, HP-5) that would render the highest tonal values as shabbily as this Canon 1Ds Mark II's digital capture does. This image is a weak example of a "digital" image, and it's about as far from a "film-like image" as one could hope to have to suffer through.

The clipped highlights, and the narrow tonal range shown both serve to make this a poor and "digital-appearing" image. Even the worst B&W film has a shoulder area that handles different highlight densities without clipping suddenly, just above extremely light gray; this capture has no shoulder whatsoever, and clips right to oblivion after the extremely light grays. This image is a massive failure as an attempt to show what a "film-like" high key image actually looks like.

ROFLMMFAO!!!!!!!! I read about ONE line of your post, then ignored the rest, you UGLY, four-eyed, hating FREAK! You only WISH you could create such a beautiful portrait of two little girls as this. Do you have any idea how many people have said this is the best baby portrait they've ever seen?

Your HATE wouldn't have anything to do with your online buddy "Sabrina-O" woudl it? LOL@YOU!!

You don't even POST photos on here and you aren't even good enough to have a web site - you are PATHETIC!

GET RREEAL! LMAO@YOU!!!!!!!!!!! You only WISH you could create anything even LIKE this!

And sabrina, you have caught ENOUGH hell for your HORRIBLE, atrocious, piece of crap "photos" by MANY others on this forum, on several threads. So don't even make me post up some of your trash!!

Cats out the bag.

Funny thing is, i can actually picture you behind your computer desk getting all bent out of shape. Quite funny if i must say so myself.

You need to be medicated doggie, heavily.

LMAO... I am just laughing at this guy. He's so pathetic.

 

[MWG]

He went out blazing atleast

 

[SabrinaO]

SNIP> ...the Canon 1ds2. SNIP> There's "something" about the shots that come from this body that are truly unique and remarkable. The results are one of the most "film-like" digital cameras I've ever seen or used.

"Sisters":



One reason I prefer Canon, is because the photos always look natural; I never saw a shot from a Nikon that I didn't feel looked "digital" or computerized.

You've absolutely GOT to be kidding!!! Look at that horribly blown-out cheek area on the bottom baby, and the horribly blown-out nose and upper lip of the baby on top. Plus, the crude attempt to burn-in the hand of the baby on the top, to replace the blown-out white areas that should have been the edge of the hand. If ever there was a photo that screamed "digital shot", this is that photo; the way the highlight values are bright, and then simply "blow out" to detail-less, paper-white, over 255--yuck! This image exhibits limited,crude tonality, meaning basically three tonal values; very light gray, extremely light gray, and then an immediate transition to TOTALLY blown-out, detail-less white. This image illustrates the quintessential FAILURE of digital capture: highlight values that go up,and then abruptly clip to detail-less white. There is no B&W film I've ever shot (Tri-X, Tri-X Pan Professional, Plus-X, Panatomic X,T-Max 100, T-Max 400, Verichrome Pan, HP-4, HP-5) that would render the highest tonal values as shabbily as this Canon 1Ds Mark II's digital capture does. This image is a weak example of a "digital" image, and it's about as far from a "film-like image" as one could hope to have to suffer through.

The clipped highlights, and the narrow tonal range shown both serve to make this a poor and "digital-appearing" image. Even the worst B&W film has a shoulder area that handles different highlight densities without clipping suddenly, just above extremely light gray; this capture has no shoulder whatsoever, and clips right to oblivion after the extremely light grays. This image is a massive failure as an attempt to show what a "film-like" high key image actually looks like.

ROFLMMFAO!!!!!!!! I read about ONE line of your post, then ignored the rest, you UGLY, four-eyed, hating FREAK! You only WISH you could create such a beautiful portrait of two little girls as this. Do you have any idea how many people have said this is the best baby portrait they've ever seen?

Your HATE wouldn't have anything to do with your online buddy "Sabrina-O" woudl it? LOL@YOU!!

You don't even POST photos on here and you aren't even good enough to have a web site - you are PATHETIC!

GET RREEAL! LMAO@YOU!!!!!!!!!!! You only WISH you could create anything even LIKE this!

And sabrina, you have caught ENOUGH hell for your HORRIBLE, atrocious, piece of crap "photos" by MANY others on this forum, on several threads. So don't even make me post up some of your trash!!

What? This is one of the worst "portraits" ive ever seen. You captured a tender moment, but all the technical aspects are ALL WRONG. You don't have to post my "trash". I have nothing to hide...thats why a lot of my "trash" is on here.

 

[vtf]

He went out blazing atleast

I would say in flames.

 

[MWG]

What? This is one of the worst "portraits" ive ever seen. You captured a tender moment, but all the technical aspects are ALL WRONG. You don't have to post my "trash". I have nothing to hide...thats why a lot of my "trash" is on here.

You cant talk to banned folk.

 

[Hardrock]

You cant talk to banned folk.

Glad I didn't waste all that popcorn...

 

[vtf]

and it begins...

if I could only find that stupid popcorn smiley!

It's now located only under advance.

 

[KmH]

One reason I prefer Canon, is because the photos always look natural; I never saw a shot from a Nikon that I didn't feel looked "digital" or computerized.

I had a chuckle at that statement... that's ridiculous. Trust me you cannot really tell the difference between comparable camera models/lenses--that's just in your head.

Concur.

 

[timlint]

Don't buy into the hype of having the best camera will produce the best photos. If you don't understand exposure or composition you can take awful photos with the best camera. Get something "entry-level" for a body of either brand you prefer and get a lens that can go with a new body. (A canon EF lens instead of EF-S) so you can upgrade the body and keep your lens. You can create very creative and well done shots with these entry level setups and in the process keep the cash in the pocket for other things. Just my two cents and my approach.