The changing field of professional cameras

[thereyougo!4]

Well, since neither the Canon 1DS Mark III and the Nikon D3S cannot come close to this speed in full resolution, it is hardly a joke, unless the joke is on the slower Nikon and Canon cameras mentioned.

skieur

This is probably why the other cameras you mention employ an OPTICAL view finder... zero lag.

Yes zero lag but at 5 fps or slower and NOT at 12 frames per second at full resolution.

skieur

You don't get it do you. If I wanted 12 fps I would want each of those fps to be in focus and to catch the shot. No pro is going to use the A77 on a fee paying gig. It's not all about resolution, it's about more than that. I'd bet that the D3s would get a far better shot than any A77. Why? because if the 'tog needs an ultra fast shooting speed, they can rely on a higher ISO to still produce saleable goods. If a photographer can rely on an ISO of say 800 being able to get good results on a professional level, then he will get more shots per second than a tog needing to use a slower shooting speed because a lower ISO is required to get same quality. If a shooter has to use ISO 200 to get the same quality, then his shooting speed will be 4 x slower than the 800 speed, if I have got my maths right. He is then unlikely to get very close to 12 fps at all. The A77 is only 12 fps on paper. That's pretty meaningless in the real world. It's not about how many frames per second for professionals but about how many useable frames. Very few professional sports togs need 24mp. 12 will be more than ample, and I'm not a Nikon fan. Before I shot with MF digital I was on Canon. The A77 will never win a battle against any good nikon on the ISO stakes. Simples

 

[skieur]

I think that I understand where you were going with this thread, skieur. Sony's "top" camera is now the A77, fixed-mirror, crop-sensor camera, with Sony's newest 24.6 megapixel sensor in it. However, I do not really think that Sony's top model camera automatically qualifies it as a "pro camera". To me, the term "pro camera" has always meant a "flagship-level" camera, ie, the BEST-possible technology and construction, and reliability and ruggedness, that the camera's maker can muster. So, over the past decades, that would encompass cameras like the Nikon F and F2, Nikon F3,F4,and F5, and the Canon F1 and F1-n, then the EOS-1, and then in modern times the Nikon 1-digit series cameras, and the Canon 1-digit series of bodies.

Of course, over the past decades there have been high-end AMATEUR-oriented camera models that have found widespread professional use. Nikon's FM- and FE- series camera models were a great example of "high-end amateur" cameras that were used by tens of thousands of professionals for many years. Same with the later N90,N90s,and F100 film cameras.

While the Canon 5D and 5D-II have found wide acceptance among wedding and social photographers...these are not really "professional cameras" in the "flagship" sense of the word--they are in fact, really quite stripped-down, very BASIC cameras, lacking in many features found in lower-cost cameras from multiple makers. However, if the term professional camera simply means "in use by quite a few professional photographers," then the Canon 5D and 5D-II, as well as the Nikon D700, and D300 and D300s would also qualify as "professional cameras." Sony however, does not have much in the way of professional acceptance or use...their user base is new,and in part some of Minolta's old user base, and is for the most part I think, amateurs and people who are just entering into the d-slr market. If your intent was to lump the A77 into the "professional camera" segment, it would ONLY be based upon the megapixel count of the camera, because it does not have a wide professional photographer user base like the Canon 5D series has, or the Nikon cameras have. Sony's efforts in the A900 and A850 models, full-frame, simple, great design, good viewfinders, low-tech bodies (no live view, no video) fell FLAT, and now Sony has regrouped and is trying to push fixed-mirror cameras onto consumers. They are trying to convince people that their new technology is an "advantage", and one worth paying for. I simply do not think that bearing the highest-ranking model number makes the Sony A77 a "professional camera".

Boy, your definition of pro camera is rather limited by your examples, even over the past decades. The Minolta XK was the best technology, construction, reliability and ruggedness in its time and it was "flagship-level". It even had interchangeable focus screens. You forgot the Leica R4 and M series rangefinders that fit that definition as well. The Contax RTS with Zeiss lenses was also a pro camera.

Even your view of high end amateur cameras over past decades is biased toward Nikon. The Minolta XD11 was one of the best designed and robust cameras of its time too. I used 2 of them continually and professionally at one point, even more than the Nikons that I also had at my disposal. They were great cameras for journalistic and public relations action shooting.

As to professional use, you are engaging in broad generalizations. Even the pros on this forum, and I use the term loosely, are using everything from basic Canon cameras with kit lenses through to Red Epic with medium and large format digital modules or those who favour the Hasselblad or Leica S2.

As to where I am coming from or going, it is simple. Canon, Nikon, and Sony are one,two and three in terms of DSLR cameras according to Popular Photography and other sources. The Canon IDS Mark III, Nikon D3X and the Sony A77 are the most expensive cameras in their respective lines at 21 and 24 megapixels. Looking at the specifications side by side, they are well matched, in that some pluses on the side of one camera are matched by different pluses on the side of the other camera(s). In looking at the photos side by side, picture quality and noise is similar. None of these are great at very high ISOs.
Nikon and Sony are closer together in quality with warmer colours than the Canon that has less sharpness and resolution. This is looking at the photo of the girl in green...specifically at the text on the book she is holding and on the wine glass to the right in the image on the web site I mentioned. Side by side photos is the only way to compare but lets keep this thread to the models I started out with and to the photos we are comparing.

skieur

 

[cgipson1]

As to where I am coming from or going, it is simple. Canon, Nikon, and Sony are one,two and three in terms of DSLR cameras according to Popular Photography and other sources.

skieur

Is Popular Photography really a reputable source to be quoting? Even back in the 80's... the mag was so advertising ridden, that many reviews seemed biased. Really curious about opinions on this!

 

[skieur]

This is probably why the other cameras you mention employ an OPTICAL view finder... zero lag.

Yes zero lag but at 5 fps or slower and NOT at 12 frames per second at full resolution.

skieur

You don't get it do you. If I wanted 12 fps I would want each of those fps to be in focus and to catch the shot. No pro is going to use the A77 on a fee paying gig. It's not all about resolution, it's about more than that. I'd bet that the D3s would get a far better shot than any A77. Why? because if the 'tog needs an ultra fast shooting speed, they can rely on a higher ISO to still produce saleable goods. If a photographer can rely on an ISO of say 800 being able to get good results on a professional level, then he will get more shots per second than a tog needing to use a slower shooting speed because a lower ISO is required to get same quality. If a shooter has to use ISO 200 to get the same quality, then his shooting speed will be 4 x slower than the 800 speed, if I have got my maths right. He is then unlikely to get very close to 12 fps at all. The A77 is only 12 fps on paper. That's pretty meaningless in the real world. It's not about how many frames per second for professionals but about how many useable frames. Very few professional sports togs need 24mp. 12 will be more than ample, and I'm not a Nikon fan. Before I shot with MF digital I was on Canon. The A77 will never win a battle against any good nikon on the ISO stakes. Simples

What I get is that you are not reading. The A77 has a better and faster phase shift autofocus then any other DSLR according to the reviews
that I read. You are saying that the D3x would get a far better shot but you have NOT defined what a "far better shot is" if resolution is NOT part of the picture. Looking at the images side by side the D3X at 1600 ISO was NO better than the A77 at 1600 ISO, so your argument loses ground. So, if you have to go down in ISO on the A77 to get pro quality then you MUST go down equally low on the Nikon D3X, so your argument goes nowhere here either.

As to whether pros need 24meg resolution it depends on what you are shooting. If I am shooting products or anything with text in various parts of the image, then yes I do need and want high resolution. I would certainly not shoot electronic equipment for example in lower res.

As to frames per second speed, Derrel started things down that road. It does add features to the Sony that use this speed that are not available on the other cameras.

skieur

 

[thereyougo!4]

Yes zero lag but at 5 fps or slower and NOT at 12 frames per second at full resolution.

skieur

You don't get it do you. If I wanted 12 fps I would want each of those fps to be in focus and to catch the shot. No pro is going to use the A77 on a fee paying gig. It's not all about resolution, it's about more than that. I'd bet that the D3s would get a far better shot than any A77. Why? because if the 'tog needs an ultra fast shooting speed, they can rely on a higher ISO to still produce saleable goods. If a photographer can rely on an ISO of say 800 being able to get good results on a professional level, then he will get more shots per second than a tog needing to use a slower shooting speed because a lower ISO is required to get same quality. If a shooter has to use ISO 200 to get the same quality, then his shooting speed will be 4 x slower than the 800 speed, if I have got my maths right. He is then unlikely to get very close to 12 fps at all. The A77 is only 12 fps on paper. That's pretty meaningless in the real world. It's not about how many frames per second for professionals but about how many useable frames. Very few professional sports togs need 24mp. 12 will be more than ample, and I'm not a Nikon fan. Before I shot with MF digital I was on Canon. The A77 will never win a battle against any good nikon on the ISO stakes. Simples

What I get is that you are not reading. The A77 has a better and faster phase shift autofocus then any other DSLR according to the reviews
that I read. You are saying that the D3x would get a far better shot but you have NOT defined what a "far better shot is" if resolution is NOT part of the picture. Looking at the images side by side the D3X at 1600 ISO was NO better than the A77 at 1600 ISO, so your argument loses ground. So, if you have to go down in ISO on the A77 to get pro quality then you MUST go down equally low on the Nikon D3X, so your argument goes nowhere here either.

As to whether pros need 24meg resolution it depends on what you are shooting. If I am shooting products or anything with text in various parts of the image, then yes I do need and want high resolution. I would certainly not shoot electronic equipment for example in lower res.

As to frames per second speed, Derrel started things down that road. It does add features to the Sony that use this speed that are not available on the other cameras.

skieur

Since when do you need 12fps to do product shooting?

Methinks you are just a Sony fanboi talking nonsense. The Sony A77 is an enthusiast's camera at most. Most product shoots where resolution is important are done in studio, and they are NOT done with Sony A900 let alone with A77. They would be done with MF with Hassies or Phase Ones.

 

[mjhoward]

It's official, skieur is delusional

 

[Derrel]

Your reading comprehension is kind of poor skieur. I listed the "best": camera a manufacturer can make, ie, its flagship, as being what I consider a "pro" camera. Minolta is a dead company,defunct company. the leica flex line of cameras never was very complete, nor very well-accepted,and has been killed off, also dead. The "Contax" was a Kyocera/Yashica resurrection of a famous German brand, with imitation "Zeiss" lenses...once again, lots of "sizzle" but very,very,very little "sizzzle".

You listed The Minolta XK as " best technology, construction, reliability and ruggedness in its time and it was "flagship-level". It even had interchangeable focus screens."
--Funny thing though, I have never seen a SINGLE ONE in actual use--not one, single Minolta XK, and I hung out with aspiring photojournalists and art photography students...Nikon was #1, Canon was #2, and Olympus was #3,with the OM-1 system. As far as the "best technology", the XK is a laughable camera of choice--the Olympus OM series and had TTL flash before Minolta did. Minolta's XK line was a statement camera, but it was an abject failure. It was Minolta's pro camera, for sure. And yet, I never, EVER have seen a single one in actual use...not in 35+ years...As far as the Minolkta XK having the best ruggedness an reliability...pretty much theoretical, in that pretty much zero pros ever proved they were rugged cameras...their toughest assignments were found on the pages of Popular Photography magazine, in the Minolta advertisement ad copy.

Minolta's XD-11???? Are you serious??? Canon's A-1 multi-mode was more-advanced. Pentax's Super Program was equally advanced. The Canon however, was a poor seller,and despite its tremendous advances in design, always sold poorly, and was discontinued after small numbers were made. Pentax's LX was MORE-advanced and better made than anything MInolta ever made, and YET, it too was a total,total FLOP. I have only seen ONE, in over 30 years of shooting. ONE LX, in the real world...Nikon F bodies? HUNDREDS. Canon bodies? HUNDREDS.

You forgot the Leica R4 and M series rangefinders that fit that definition as well. The Contax RTS with Zeiss lenses was also a pro camera.

No I did not "forget them"....I mentioned a manufacturer's best possible camera as being their "flagship"...I think your long-term love for Minolta/Sony is showing here...the Leica held sway for a long time as a small 35mm camera, but as soon as the Nikon system came into being, Leica found itself outmoded within a decade. The Leica rangefinder is a good camera with about four lens lengths, but the framing is poor for lenses longer than about 90mm...nearly useless for longer lenses like 135 to 300...Leica R-series...stepchildren of the Leica family, not well-liked by many, discontinued about four years ago...no sales...no user base...outmoded design...Contax RTS with YASHICA-made (Kyocera 'Zeiss') lenses....yeah, I owned one in 1980-81...it was a very poorly-conceived system.

Even your view of high end amateur cameras over past decades is biased toward Nikon. The Minolta XD11 was one of the best designed and robust cameras of its time too. I used 2 of them continually and professionally at one point, even more than the Nikons that I also had at my disposal. They were great cameras for journalistic and public relations action shooting.

**Hilarious...Let's see...Minolta as a camera maker--DEAD. Out of business. Contax as a camera brand--DEAD....discontinued. Leicaflex as a camera brand--DEAD...discontinued. Olympus as a camera brand--currently, as of yesterdaym, being raided by the Japanese federal government for financial misdealings extending back to the 1980's, and pretty much one of the worst camera makers in terms of offerings. Pentax as a camera makwer--hmmm....passed over by HOYA, and now sold to Ricoh....Miranda as a camera maker--dead. Petri-dead. Mamiya/Sekor as a 35mm camera maker--DEADR. Rolleiflex as a 35mm camera maker=DEAD. As I said, Nikon and CANON, THRIVING....My "bias" is toward cameras that actually made it out of the showrooms and the magazines...Minolta fell on its face multiple times and never could gain acceptance as a pro camera...the brand is DEAD.

Whose bias are we talking about here, really??? Is Elvis still alive???

Sony professional cameras...blah,blah,blah...

 

[Destin]

Yes zero lag but at 5 fps or slower and NOT at 12 frames per second at full resolution.

skieur

You don't get it do you. If I wanted 12 fps I would want each of those fps to be in focus and to catch the shot. No pro is going to use the A77 on a fee paying gig. It's not all about resolution, it's about more than that. I'd bet that the D3s would get a far better shot than any A77. Why? because if the 'tog needs an ultra fast shooting speed, they can rely on a higher ISO to still produce saleable goods. If a photographer can rely on an ISO of say 800 being able to get good results on a professional level, then he will get more shots per second than a tog needing to use a slower shooting speed because a lower ISO is required to get same quality. If a shooter has to use ISO 200 to get the same quality, then his shooting speed will be 4 x slower than the 800 speed, if I have got my maths right. He is then unlikely to get very close to 12 fps at all. The A77 is only 12 fps on paper. That's pretty meaningless in the real world. It's not about how many frames per second for professionals but about how many useable frames. Very few professional sports togs need 24mp. 12 will be more than ample, and I'm not a Nikon fan. Before I shot with MF digital I was on Canon. The A77 will never win a battle against any good nikon on the ISO stakes. Simples

What I get is that you are not reading. The A77 has a better and faster phase shift autofocus then any other DSLR according to the reviews
that I read. You are saying that the D3x would get a far better shot but you have NOT defined what a "far better shot is" if resolution is NOT part of the picture. Looking at the images side by side the D3X at 1600 ISO was NO better than the A77 at 1600 ISO, so your argument loses ground. So, if you have to go down in ISO on the A77 to get pro quality then you MUST go down equally low on the Nikon D3X, so your argument goes nowhere here either.

As to whether pros need 24meg resolution it depends on what you are shooting. If I am shooting products or anything with text in various parts of the image, then yes I do need and want high resolution. I would certainly not shoot electronic equipment for example in lower res.

As to frames per second speed, Derrel started things down that road. It does add features to the Sony that use this speed that are not available on the other cameras.

skieur

I'll repeat: THE D3X IS NOT A SPORTS CAMERA. IT IS MEANT TO LIVE IN A STUDIO AND WORK AT LOW ISO'S IN PERFECT LIGHTING CONDITIONS. Using it in a comparison on high frame rate sports photography is asinine.

Let's compare the a77's AF and iso performance the the real competitor for this type of shooting, the D3s, and see how it holds up. It won't hold a candle to the Nikon, period.

 

[skieur]

Interesting how complicated Live View is to use on the Nikon D3x versus how easy it is to use on the Sony A77



skieur

 

[Ballistics]

Interesting how complicated Live View is to use on the Nikon D3x versus how easy it is to use on the Sony A77



skieur

And the D3x was released exactly 3 years ago, and the Sony was released a couple months ago. Better yet, lets compare the A77 to a nikon D100.

You are cherry picking your arguments and it's getting kind of sad now.

 

[Ballistics]

The nikon D4 is due out in a few months, I'll be sure to start a thread comparing the Nikon D4 to the Sony A77 since the A77 is comparable to all of these fancy professional cameras.

 

[jake337]

You don't get it do you. If I wanted 12 fps I would want each of those fps to be in focus and to catch the shot. No pro is going to use the A77 on a fee paying gig. It's not all about resolution, it's about more than that. I'd bet that the D3s would get a far better shot than any A77. Why? because if the 'tog needs an ultra fast shooting speed, they can rely on a higher ISO to still produce saleable goods. If a photographer can rely on an ISO of say 800 being able to get good results on a professional level, then he will get more shots per second than a tog needing to use a slower shooting speed because a lower ISO is required to get same quality. If a shooter has to use ISO 200 to get the same quality, then his shooting speed will be 4 x slower than the 800 speed, if I have got my maths right. He is then unlikely to get very close to 12 fps at all. The A77 is only 12 fps on paper. That's pretty meaningless in the real world. It's not about how many frames per second for professionals but about how many useable frames. Very few professional sports togs need 24mp. 12 will be more than ample, and I'm not a Nikon fan. Before I shot with MF digital I was on Canon. The A77 will never win a battle against any good nikon on the ISO stakes. Simples

What I get is that you are not reading. The A77 has a better and faster phase shift autofocus then any other DSLR according to the reviews
that I read. You are saying that the D3x would get a far better shot but you have NOT defined what a "far better shot is" if resolution is NOT part of the picture. Looking at the images side by side the D3X at 1600 ISO was NO better than the A77 at 1600 ISO, so your argument loses ground. So, if you have to go down in ISO on the A77 to get pro quality then you MUST go down equally low on the Nikon D3X, so your argument goes nowhere here either.

As to whether pros need 24meg resolution it depends on what you are shooting. If I am shooting products or anything with text in various parts of the image, then yes I do need and want high resolution. I would certainly not shoot electronic equipment for example in lower res.

As to frames per second speed, Derrel started things down that road. It does add features to the Sony that use this speed that are not available on the other cameras.

skieur

I'll repeat: THE D3X IS NOT A SPORTS CAMERA. IT IS MEANT TO LIVE IN A STUDIO AND WORK AT LOW ISO'S IN PERFECT LIGHTING CONDITIONS. Using it in a comparison on high frame rate sports photography is asinine.

Let's compare the a77's AF and iso performance the the real competitor for this type of shooting, the D3s, and see how it holds up. It won't hold a candle to the Nikon, period.

Or better yet. Compare it to the upcoming Nikon/Canon pro lineup since the are being released closer to the Sony A77 release date.

 

[Buckster]

Interesting how complicated Live View is to use on the Nikon D3x versus how easy it is to use on the Sony A77

(video)

skieur

That was ridiculous. I can't stand this fanboi crap any longer. It's too much like watching a train wreck in slow motion while the passengers stare out the windows in horror at me.

Having read his threads, his responses in others' threads, and seen the photos he's posted, I can only conclude that he's nothing more than a poser, no matter what he claims his level of experience is. I don't think I've seen a single thing he's posted that has any value at all.

Where's that ignore button...

 

[unpopular]

That was ridiculous. I can't stand this fanboi crap any longer. It's too much like watching a train wreck in slow motion [...]

Is the train going in circles? Because this one is.

 

[skieur]

You don't get it do you. If I wanted 12 fps I would want each of those fps to be in focus and to catch the shot. No pro is going to use the A77 on a fee paying gig. It's not all about resolution, it's about more than that. I'd bet that the D3s would get a far better shot than any A77. Why? because if the 'tog needs an ultra fast shooting speed, they can rely on a higher ISO to still produce saleable goods. If a photographer can rely on an ISO of say 800 being able to get good results on a professional level, then he will get more shots per second than a tog needing to use a slower shooting speed because a lower ISO is required to get same quality. If a shooter has to use ISO 200 to get the same quality, then his shooting speed will be 4 x slower than the 800 speed, if I have got my maths right. He is then unlikely to get very close to 12 fps at all. The A77 is only 12 fps on paper. That's pretty meaningless in the real world. It's not about how many frames per second for professionals but about how many useable frames. Very few professional sports togs need 24mp. 12 will be more than ample, and I'm not a Nikon fan. Before I shot with MF digital I was on Canon. The A77 will never win a battle against any good nikon on the ISO stakes. Simples

What I get is that you are not reading. The A77 has a better and faster phase shift autofocus then any other DSLR according to the reviews
that I read. You are saying that the D3x would get a far better shot but you have NOT defined what a "far better shot is" if resolution is NOT part of the picture. Looking at the images side by side the D3X at 1600 ISO was NO better than the A77 at 1600 ISO, so your argument loses ground. So, if you have to go down in ISO on the A77 to get pro quality then you MUST go down equally low on the Nikon D3X, so your argument goes nowhere here either.

As to whether pros need 24meg resolution it depends on what you are shooting. If I am shooting products or anything with text in various parts of the image, then yes I do need and want high resolution. I would certainly not shoot electronic equipment for example in lower res.

As to frames per second speed, Derrel started things down that road. It does add features to the Sony that use this speed that are not available on the other cameras.

skieur

Since when do you need 12fps to do product shooting?

Methinks you are just a Sony fanboi talking nonsense. The Sony A77 is an enthusiast's camera at most. Most product shoots where resolution is important are done in studio, and they are NOT done with Sony A900 let alone with A77. They would be done with MF with Hassies or Phase Ones.

You are reading too fast again. I said 24 meg resolution for product shooting, not 12fps. You were the one who said 12meg was ample enough for pros. I was just disagreeing with your resolution comment. Now you are disagreeing with yourself and saying MF is needed for product work and I totally agee for top end shoots, but the only "12megapixel" camera I would ever consider would be Epic Red but then the sensor is sooo big that it is beyond comparison to the quality of a 35mm format 12 megapixel camera.

As far as being a Sony fanboy, I got dragged into this by a Nikon fanboy. My view is simply that none of the 3 cameras: Canon, Nikon, or Sony is drastically better or worse than any other in the list and for that matter all can be used effectively by pros. Preference is just based on what you shoot and what camera weaknesses you can work around, since all cameras have them. If I did a lot of lab work I would lean to medium format and not use any of the above. I consider cameras consumable and in 3 years or less it is time for a new one, anyway. Preparing a multimedia presentation from my photos and video to be seen by 1,000 important potential future customers requires a different level of equipment, accessories, time and attention to detail than shooting photos for a small size public relations folder to go out to a community. The size of the final images alone is drastically different. Perhaps my photographic concerns with cameras are not the same as yours for the simple reason that we do different shoots for different reasons.

skieur