Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Annika1980, Dec 12, 2008.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. Annika1980

    Helen Guest

    Helen, Dec 12, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Annika1980

    Pete D Guest

  4. Annika1980

    Helen Guest

    I do. I'm sorry my poor explanation doesn't do it justice, but I see
    a better quality in detail. Similar to when you compare a print from
    a 35mm camera to a print from a medium format camera.
    Helen, Dec 12, 2008
  5. Annika1980

    tony cooper Guest

    The Law of Diminishing Returns does seem to apply. Bret has been
    doing well enough with his "old" equipment. I don't see how anyone
    could look at these images and tell that he's upgraded.

    Not that the pics aren't good, but with the ballyhoo about the new
    camera one would be expect to scratch the dog's back in the photo and
    see one rear leg start to move.
    tony cooper, Dec 12, 2008
  6. Annika1980

    Jurgen Guest

    That was my initial reaction too but there 'seems' to be more clearly
    defined fur on the cat and certainly the lighting is better than his
    earlier work. This probably is achieved through higher ISO.

    I think the real benefit of a higher resolution camera is lost on the
    Internet. Apart from posting a full size image, there is now no way of
    comparing image quality on the Internet.

    I think critical mass was reached at about 6 Mp and anything else needs
    large prints to see any meaningful improvement in detail rendering. As
    has been shown in the past, downsizing an OOF image to web size often
    conceals the OOF. Not that I'm saying any of these are out of focus.

    Maybe his movies will be more impressive but right now, if this camera
    was bought to impress Usenet junkies, it fails miserably. Let's wait to
    pass judgement until we see some outdoor stuff. Plenty of winter scenes
    around now that are worth taking.
    Jurgen, Dec 12, 2008
  7. Yeah, like where did the cheerleaders go???

    john mcwilliams

    In fact, I'm a word nerd. I get a kick out of tossing a few odd ones
    into my column, just to see if the pervicacious editors will weed them out.
    --Michael Hawley
    John McWilliams, Dec 13, 2008
  8. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Jurgen wrote,on my timestamp of 13/12/2008 8:58 AM:
    Nup, he's using 50.

    Of course not. Anyone claiming otherwise has gotta
    have rocks in their head. Which Helen and Bret have in

    Doesn't take a university degree to figure they are.
    Web-size photos like those can be taken with any 4MP camera,
    to use a 5D2 for that and claim it looks different
    only demonstrates the idiocy and ignorance of the
    person(s) doing so.

    Careful, he'll now post heaps of
    minuscule shots of non-white snow...
    Noons, Dec 13, 2008
  9. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    You wish, dipshit. Here's a full-size crop of Buster's eye:

    I'd post the whole image full size, but I don't want you to piss

    If we ever get snow here, you'll know it pretty fast.
    Annika1980, Dec 13, 2008
  10. Annika1980

    Helen Guest

    Helen, Dec 13, 2008
  11. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    There is another SI mandate coming up.
    Stay tuned.
    Annika1980, Dec 13, 2008
  12. Annika1980

    Jurgen Guest

    I don't want to burst your bubble of joy at getting this new camera but
    2 years ago I took a shot of an unspectacular wine glass with a 40D.

    Sure there are artefacts in the full size clip of the glass but you have
    to expect this when you shoot in JPEG mode. When the whole (cropped)
    image is printed, you can't see them.

    The original image was long ago cropped into a landscape orientation
    from it's original portrait mode.

    In comparing your "eye shot" where you used a shorter (more manageable)
    lens with flash assist, there is not enough difference in the image
    quality compared to this hand held, 200mm, natural light shot to make me
    run out and buy a 5D to replace the old battered 40D that took this
    shot, much less any of my new cameras.

    Any chance you've taken any movies yet?
    Jurgen, Dec 13, 2008
  13. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 13/12/2008 1:30 PM:
    That would be real hard: first, few of your photos
    have any more DOF than a paper sheet. Second, I was
    taking 21MP photos years before you even attempted one.
    Noons, Dec 13, 2008
  14. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Helen wrote,on my timestamp of 13/12/2008 1:48 PM:
    Really? why is it that the eyebrow of the dog
    is out of focus while between the eyes it appears
    to be in focus? But then again: technical examination
    of a photo is not your forte, is it?
    Noons, Dec 13, 2008
  15. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Well, unless you need the extra resolution, the better performance at
    high ISOs, the AF microadjustments, or 1080p video then you might have
    a point.
    You certainly won't see any difference between the 5D2 and the 40D on
    a downressed shot at web resolutions or even a full-size crop at low

    I've taken a few movies, but I can't do much with the high-res
    versions without a massive computer upgrade. The 5D2 does let you
    shoot in DV resolution, however, so I can view those clips.

    There are plenty of awesome examples of 5D2 video on Vimeo for you to
    gaze at. Here's one I liked:
    Annika1980, Dec 13, 2008
  16. Annika1980

    Pete D Guest

    I do. I'm sorry my poor explanation doesn't do it justice, but I see
    a better quality in detail. Similar to when you compare a print from
    a 35mm camera to a print from a medium format camera.

    Sorry, my bad, I did not understand that you are a MF expert. You got to be
    Pete D, Dec 13, 2008
  17. Annika1980

    Helen Guest

    I never claimed to be such. I only stated what I honestly saw. In
    hindsight, I wish I never posted.
    I have to give credit to this newsgroup, because over the years I did
    learn a lot about digital photography and some film photography. But
    what I can never understand is why people choose to be so cruel.
    Helen, Dec 13, 2008
  18. Annika1980

    Helen Guest

    No, why should he? I'm very content with the cameras I have.
    Helen, Dec 13, 2008
  19. Annika1980

    Pete D Guest

    Not cruel at all just not seeing what you are seeing I guess. Certainley the
    two small shots are ordinary at best and the big one of the cat is soft and
    downright scratchy around the edges. I am sure the camera can do very well,
    these are simply not particularly good examples and do not deserve the
    superlatives that you gush forward with.
    Pete D, Dec 13, 2008
  20. Annika1980

    Jurgen Guest

    I guess this is a fantastic example of what you get when you ask a still
    photographer to shoot a movie!

    As a young man I worked as a focus puller for some notable
    cinematographers and I still know a thing or two about movie making.

    This clip is clever in the way it's been edited to conceal what I've
    thought all along was a serious issue with DSLRs in movie mode. They
    can't auto focus and record at the same time.

    Everything is shot with the camera stationary. When the tractor grooming
    the beach turns and comes toward the camera, it goes out of focus but
    the edit (almost) conceals that from a viewer.

    I've seen other clips too that are "staged" (for want of a better word)
    in a way that suits the camera. This is why I was waiting to see what
    you got before I decided to buy on or not, based on it's movie
    capabilities alone.

    All I want to do is splice a few minutes of footage into my still
    presentations. That movie you linked to almost does the 100% opposite!
    Ah well. Sony are doing a great deal on HD vidcams right now.
    Jurgen, Dec 13, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.