The changing field of professional cameras

[Destin]

Why are we inserting the D3x into a high iso comparison, when it only goes natively to 1600? The D3s is Nikon's TRUE top end pro body, even though it's less expensive, it's the better all around performer. The D3x is only good in the studio.

 

[unpopular]

because who would ever use ISO 200 outside?

 

[unpopular]

That is true, but larger images also mean more reduction at any given print size, and no no matter what as you approach these absurd ISOs you're going to get noisy results to the extent I am not sure it matters much if there is more grain in one camera than the other at ISO 2.3 billion.

---

Honestly, though, I think that us small-fry photographers get a little overly enthusiastic about 35mm frame-sized sensors and that older model medium format sensors will easily out-perform current full frame systems at a similar price range. Perhaps you won't have ISOs at above 16k (or lower), but unless you're a press photographer - who cares?

Medium format certainly outperforms in some areas but Hasselblad and the others do not handle high ISOs very well and require lots of studio light for indoor work.

skieur

For a long time we did just fine with ISO 400 film, you know. I think this absurd ISO stuff is really a non-issue. While digital may outperform film in terms of SNR per square unit, very high ISOs still result in noise. It's a matter of if it looks crappy or more crappy.

 

[usayit]

Keep the technology rat race going.... How else do you think I'm going to get my hands on some of this barely used equipment for s*&ts and giggles?

 

[skieur]

Sorry Skieur, but are you honestly saying the A77 is a good high ISO camera? You make alot of valid points in your post and I agree with you and think the gap is closing so don't think this is a blast at you, it really is not!

My only beef is using the A77 as an example of a good High ISO camera. The A77 has absolutely ghastly High ISO. DP Review slammed this camera for its HIGH ISO noise performance, it really is not a camera I would spend 20 pennies on, it has other things going for it but its another typical case of Sony being the company who sells style over substance (the main reason I try to avoid Sony products if I can).

You would be better off mentioning the D7000 in comparison to these cameras in my humble opinion.

Well, if the A77 has ghastly high ISO, then so does the Nikon D3X and the Canon IDS Mark III, since side by side the images look very similar in sharpness, quality etc.

skieur

Yeah, that's because who ever shot these pictures are awful or rushed through the process.

Excuses! It sounds like your BIAS is showing.

skieur

 

[skieur]

That is true, but larger images also mean more reduction at any given print size, and no no matter what as you approach these absurd ISOs you're going to get noisy results to the extent I am not sure it matters much if there is more grain in one camera than the other at ISO 2.3 billion.

---

Honestly, though, I think that us small-fry photographers get a little overly enthusiastic about 35mm frame-sized sensors and that older model medium format sensors will easily out-perform current full frame systems at a similar price range. Perhaps you won't have ISOs at above 16k (or lower), but unless you're a press photographer - who cares?

Medium format certainly outperforms in some areas but Hasselblad and the others do not handle high ISOs very well and require lots of studio light for indoor work.

skieur

For a long time we did just fine with ISO 400 film, you know. I think this absurd ISO stuff is really a non-issue. While digital may outperform film in terms of SNR per square unit, very high ISOs still result in noise. It's a matter of if it looks crappy or more crappy.

I tend to agree. I avoid using any camera past ISO 800.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Keep the technology rat race going.... How else do you think I'm going to get my hands on some of this barely used equipment for s*&ts and giggles?

It also keeps the prices competitive and adds new features to the cameras.

skieur

 

[Ballistics]

Well, if the A77 has ghastly high ISO, then so does the Nikon D3X and the Canon IDS Mark III, since side by side the images look very similar in sharpness, quality etc.

skieur

Yeah, that's because who ever shot these pictures are awful or rushed through the process.

Excuses! It sounds like your BIAS is showing.

skieur

How can I be biased about ALL of the cameras? And I find it funny that you call legitimate issues with the shots excuses. Last time I checked, a comparison has only 1 variable, the camera. Not the time of day, height, angle, etc etc etc. If you can't admit the fact that these are half assed examples, you would be the one making biased excuses.

Furthermore, the examples at high ISOs contradict your argument. The image looks posterized @ 1600 and higher.

 

[tirediron]

Keep the technology rat race going.... How else do you think I'm going to get my hands on some of this barely used equipment for s*&ts and giggles?

:thumbup: Yep... an F5 in mint condition for ~$300, Mamiya 645 AFD kit for $1500???? More please!

 

[Derrel]

I looked at the sample images comparing the A77 and the Canon 5D-II...at higher ISO values, the crop-sensor looks worse. In terms of "canard", one meaning of which is falsehood or "lie"--Sony's A77 and its 8- and 12 fps- frame rates are a canard...a Live View finder image that cannot keep up with the camera being moved AND an AF system that can not keep up with slower-firing conventional cameras with those awful flapping mirrors...

I think the average Sony A77 pro-sumer buyer thinks he or she is going to be able to shoot high-speed action at 8- to 12-Frames Per Second...BUT I doubt those buyers realize that the viewfinder image will not keep up with a moving subject, and the AF will penalize the user whenever he or she manages to luck into the subject while shooting blind...to me, that is a "canard".

 

[skieur]

Yeah, that's because who ever shot these pictures are awful or rushed through the process.

Excuses! It sounds like your BIAS is showing.

skieur

How can I be biased about ALL of the cameras? And I find it funny that you call legitimate issues with the shots excuses. Last time I checked, a comparison has only 1 variable, the camera. Not the time of day, height, angle, etc etc etc. If you can't admit the fact that these are half assed examples, you would be the one making biased excuses.

Furthermore, the examples at high ISOs contradict your argument. The image looks posterized @ 1600 and higher.

OK, so explain how these shots taken under "controlled conditions" as indicated are all "awful or rushed through the process".....whatever you mean by process. That seems to me to be just a biased opinion of the testing as in, they are all awful because they contradict your views.

These supposed "half-assed examples" according to you are done with all the cameras, so if your "favourite camera" does not show up better than any other than the problem is your camera.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Keep the technology rat race going.... How else do you think I'm going to get my hands on some of this barely used equipment for s*&ts and giggles?

:thumbup: Yep... an F5 in mint condition for ~$300, Mamiya 645 AFD kit for $1500???? More please!

First let me say that for studio work, I would use a medium format camera and if you can make a profit using a Mamiya 645 AFD kit then all power to you. Film cameras however are going the way of the DODO bird so I would make the jump to medium format digital or with a digital back with a good sense of timing. (For those that are considering used medium format film cameras)

skieur

 

[skieur]

I looked at the sample images comparing the A77 and the Canon 5D-II...at higher ISO values, the crop-sensor looks worse. In terms of "canard", one meaning of which is falsehood or "lie"--Sony's A77 and its 8- and 12 fps- frame rates are a canard...a Live View finder image that cannot keep up with the camera being moved AND an AF system that can not keep up with slower-firing conventional cameras with those awful flapping mirrors...

I think the average Sony A77 pro-sumer buyer thinks he or she is going to be able to shoot high-speed action at 8- to 12-Frames Per Second...BUT I doubt those buyers realize that the viewfinder image will not keep up with a moving subject, and the AF will penalize the user whenever he or she manages to luck into the subject while shooting blind...to me, that is a "canard".

Well, at the very beginning we were talking about the Canon IDS Mark III and at higher crop values the images do NOT look worse for the A77 vs this camera. Explain where I am supposedly wrong here. The viewfinder for the A77 is apparently according to tests less than 1/10 sec behind on continuous shooting at 24 megapixels. So tell me, Derrel which camera has a better 12fps viewfinder. The AF system in phase detection does keep up to both movie and still shots at high speed.

As far as the "average Sony A77 pro-sumer", it depends on what he shoots. For the journalist or public relations shooter 5fps is fine for the job. Most wedding photographers do not require more than 5 fps either. Twilight mode, sweep panorama, and in camera HDR will also add to the repertoire to many creative wedding photographers.

So, even in sports photography I can work with 1/10 of a second lag in the viewfinder considering the 24 megapixel resolution and I can always sweep the camera and produce a panorama stitch shot as an alternative.

skieur

 

[Derrel]

In sports photography a 1/10 second lag is HUGE. Positively HUGE. Unworkably long and slow...

You obviously are not familiar with how shooting sports actually happens in the real world.

A viewfinder that lags behind the subject by 1/10 of a second is a joke.

 

[skieur]

camera has NO LIVE VIEW in 8- or 12 frames per second mode, so panning and following motion is basically damned near impossible..."Ehhh..."

Sure it does. In 12 frames per second mode, live view is less than 1/10 of a second behind, which is not much and has no comparison with any camera in its price range.

skieur