| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/26 |
| 2009/1/15-22 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52390 Activity:low |
1/14 The official presidential portrait of Obama was shot on an
exclusive all digital camera for the first time in American
history on a Canon 5D Mark II. Go Canon!
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/15/1353200
\_ 5D2 >> D700. Sorry Nikon, you've been losing every spec
war since 2002, and STILL losing in 2009. Canon >> Nikon.
http://www.photographybay.com/2008/12/27/canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-nikon-d700-in-depth-iso-comparison
\_ I really can't wait to see how your photograph are limited
by those lousy Nikon Cameras. I also bet your otherwise
beautiful handwriting are limited by those cheap Montblanc
pen you have.
\_ My investment into Canon gear will last me many decades
to come while your Nikon gear will be as dated as
Olympus and Pentax today. Invest in winners, ditch losers.
You still have a chance to switch now while your Nikon
gear are actually still worth something today. As to
your bet, I bet I'm taking better pictures today. My
IS lenses have been taking waay better picture even when
I have one shakey hand, way before Nikon even introduced
VR into the game. My Live View has been helping me take
awesome macro pictures in 1/4 the time of tradition view/
test conditions way before Nikon even considered
implementing their broken version of Live View. My Canon
cameras have had auto ultrasonic sensor cleaning systems
many years ago; Nikon just started implementing this. I
bet I've been taking cleaner pictures than you. And guess
what, I spend 20-35% less than Nikon equivalent gear. Why
\_ first of all, unless you are making money with your
photo on the side, the money you dump into Canon is
a *COST* not *INVESTMENT*. Real pro with *ROI* in
mind usually don't buy lenses like the way you do it.
they RENT it.
secondly, photography has been around for past 150
years. Many great masters has taken great photos
without all the fancy functionalities you've talked
about.
do people even consider Nikon these days? Oh I forgot...
they already invested in a bunch of legacy lenses, most
of which are feature crippled on new Nikon bodies in the
first place.
\_ FYI: it's "gear" not "gears". Gears refers to the
toothed sprockets.
\_ first of all, unless you are making money with your
photo on the side, the money you dump into Canon is
a *COST* not *INVESTMENT*. Real pro with *ROI* in
mind usually don't buy lenses like the way you do it.
they RENT it.
secondly, photography has been around for past 150
years. Many great masters has taken great photos
without all the fancy functionalities you've talked
about.
\_ The official presidential portrait of Obama was shot on an
exclusive all digital camera for the first time in American, and
it's a Japanese camera!!?? Shame!
exclusive all digital camera for the first time in American ... with
a Japanese camera!!?? Shame!
\_ Yay, Free Market Democrats!
\_ I don't recall any serious camera makers from USA... |
| 5/26 |
|
| tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/15/1353200 The picture was taken by the White House's new official photographer, Pete Souza, and issued by The Office of the President Elect through its Web site. It was taken on Tuesday evening at 5:38 pm using a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, according to the metadata embedded in the image file." Journal Despite what its tagline says, slashdot long ago ceased to be any sort of news site. This story certainly isn't breaking news, it's trivia at best, but human beings (especially nerds) are very good at talking about and arguing over trivia. Throw in politics, and the never ending debate of the merits of film vs. It's hard to think of it in such terms, but a lot has changed in technology since Bush took office. Obama is not the first to be shot with a digital camera because he's so tech savvy (as the summary implies), but rather because in the last eight years, digital film has almost entirely replaced film photography. To put this into perspective, when Bush took office only early adopters had digital cameras. High resolution cameras capable of replacing film were simply impractical and too expensive for even professional photography. Fast forward eight years and a 'friggin cell phone can take multi-megapixel photos. The professional gear is just as affordable, if not more so, than the analog stuff and can produce resolutions that are more than comparable to a good film. In result, there are very few photographers who still use film-based cameras. Thus my point is simply this: This is a whole lot of non-news. Homepage Just heard an interview with the photographer on NPR. It's semi-off-topic in that it doesn't have to do with the medium used for photographs but still an interesting piece I think. It's the first SLR still camera to take full high-quality 1080 24p video footage. Given the camera's incredible sensor and lens selection, it's a still camera that threatens to cannibalize Canon's entire prosumer video line - which is why they had to artifically hamper some features, like disallowing manual exposure in video mode. I work with video every day, and I have a hard time not using our 5D mkII over our $8000 Sony XDCAM on many shoots. I think that it is more news that this hasn't already been done the last ten years rather than this one new guy is "the first" to use it. The first president to create his own daily you tube channel, blog, website/forum, on-line poll asking the public who he should pick for cabinet positions, or owning/using his own PDA/Cell phone? Neoprofin (871029) He does actually have some power, unlike us mere mortals he's allowed to order "off the menu" at the White House, a privilege reserved for past, present, and future presidents. the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 establishes explicitly that the president-elect (and vice-president-elect) has an "office". you're correct that the office, like Obama himself right now, doesn't have any real power in government, but it is not a new creation. even the particular phrasing "Office of the President-Elect" can be found in 1992. we're just hearing so much more about it now because people are paying more attention to Obama than previous presidents-elect, and even former opponents say the transition is being run so well. Journal The Office of the President Elect And what, the heck, is that? It isn't an official portrait, it's a picture of the guy who's gonna be president by his made-up official sounding transition team. The official portrait is taken of ACTUAL presidents, period. Most of you were applauding Bush after 9/11 and now most of you have changed. Remember how excited many people were when the Republicans gain majorities in Congress? Please don't create a post when Obama is the first Pres to use a specially recycled toilet paper made from a process that doesn't create any global warming gases or pollute our rivers and streams. gsgriffin (1195771) He needs to DO something historic and not just BE something historic. I don't care what his background is and how well he talks or what party he is from. He's done nothing and people already praise him like he's the best President ever. Then he will disagree with his supporters on some issues. According to the article, he has some experience of this kind of thing, having just had his portrait taken using a digital camera. I'm sure if you call him, he'll be more than happy to discuss his experiences of photography using modern photographic methods. A lot of what a camera with better manual modes does is simply make you aware of what is happening. As you try to make your photos look better, awareness of things like aperture and focal length and shutter speed will help. I'm aware that for many people, goal-directed learning works better -- but for some, especially geeky types, just paying attention and observing the differences between (eg) comparably exposed shots with different aperture settings will be very helpful. It's not (so much) that there are things the SLR can do that the P&S can't; it's that you'll be more aware of what the camera is doing. So, if he wants to take better pictures, and is willing to put effort in, a more manual camera is a good investment early on. Of course, the more expensive camera isn't better if you don't use what it gives you. It's *part* of how you learn about photography, and it certainly won't teach you by itself. Probably SLR, though not required, and ideally with a fixed length lens in the basic package. It seems these days the designers observe they have a microprocessor available and pack everything in, and it's hard to find that older elegant simplicity. I've had one since 2004, banged the crap out it, gave it to my stepdaughter, had her bang the crap out of it an it still works. You can take thousands of pictures without additional cost. You can take a whole series of pictures changing the aperture of the lens to see what affect it has on exposure time and depth of field. Sure, you could have always done that with film, but it would have cost you - both in time and money. And best of all, you can retire to your basement and spend hours with your computer fiddling with the pixels. mrops (927562) It's not (so much) that there are things the SLR can do that the P&S can't; org/wiki/Bokeh) Besides, lens on most P&S are lower resolution than the sensor itself, your mighty gazillion megapixel P&S has a lens that resolves to only 3 megapixel. All this has a lot to do with sensors on P&S, they are about the size of the nail on your pinky finger. Canon EOS 1D Mark II on the other hand has a 35mm full frame sensor. evanbd (210358) Those features aren't that important for the early learning. Learning about taking pictures involves getting an intuitive feel for what shutter speeds and apertures do, learning about framing, what makes a good background, what sort of lighting will look good in the final version, etc. These are not things that demand a top of the line image sensor or lens. They do, however, require you to be aware of what is going on inside your camera. Journal 1) Get a tripod and use it, even if you dont think you need to! Even the cheapest POS camera can take okay stuff if you have a tripod. Use something besides your body to stabilize your camera. Move yourself and your camera until you like what will show up in the final result. Look out for that wire that will show up in the middle of the mountain shot. evanbd (210358) One part of learning to take great photos is simply taking lots of photos; no argument that the simple lightweight point and shoot has its place there. But another part is learning what happens to the light, and how that impacts what the final product looks like. And for that, I don't want lots of automatic features hiding the details, and I especially don't want to have to think about things like menu options instead of how I want the camera to behave. DittoBox (978894) Depth of field manipulation, high-ISO quality, RAW, better exposure latitude, better build quality, more precise manual focus, easier to manipulate manual controls, higher quality optics, prime lenses, battery grips (vertical shooting), wide-angle/fish-eye lenses (below 28mm equiv. focal length), long teleph... |
| www.photographybay.com/2008/12/27/canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-nikon-d700-in-depth-iso-comparison -> www.photographybay.com/2008/12/27/canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-nikon-d700-in-depth-iso-comparison/ quick and dirty comparison of the Canon 5D Mark II and Nikon D700, we looked at some sample images taken from these two cameras and relied largely on each camera's autofocus and built-in metering with very little manual tinkering by me. The prior comparison also featured 100% crops from each camera at its native resolution. Based on reader feedback, I've gone back to the drawing board for a second, more in-depth comparison of each camera's image quality and ISO range. Accordingly, for the purpose of noise comparisons and overall detail levels, I think it is appropriate to look at the images on a level playing field by taking the 5D Mark II down to 4256 pixels in width. UPDATE: Due to several comments regarding the down-res of the 5D Mark II files, I've included the original full-res files as 100% crops and enabled downloading of these files for your further inspection. I've taken 100% crops of the area around the main focus point of each file and combined the D700 and 5D Mark II crops for side-by-side viewing. Each original file is available for download via the links below the 100% crops if you want to look at other portions of the image for additional comparisons. Obviously, there are minor variations in the framing and field of view of the images between the Nikon and Canon. In switching out the cameras on the tripod and reframing the scene between the two cameras, I was a bit off; however, I do not believe that these differences had a material adverse effect on the overall test. For reference purposes, here's a shot of the complete scene that was captured, which you'll get if you download any of the originals. Canon 5D Mark II ISO 50 Original - Down-Res Nikon D700 and Canon 5D Mark II Comparison Images Nikon D700 images are on the left side of the frame and Canon 5D Mark II images are on the right side. Update: Full resolution images from the 5D Mark II are included below the main comparison images. Nikon D700 Conclusions To my eyes, the 5D Mark II comes out on top when comparing the ISO results at the same image sizes. In addition, the 5D Mark II comes offers a sharper overall image throughout the sensitivity range. As noted ealier, however, it is also clear that viewing the images at their native resolution shows that the 5D Mark II suffers from the increased (and smaller) pixels. One variable that could have leveled the playing field a bit further, however, was lens choice. If Nikon would like to provide additional equipment for testing, I'll be happy to oblige them with further tests. In the mean time, I will continue to work with what I can get my hands on. I think these past couple of tests prove the point - both Nikon and Canon have produced stellar DSLRs at prices that we would have considered unthinkable five years ago. I also think that Canon could have produced an almost-perfect (in light of current technology) DSLR had the 5D Mark II been 12-15 megapixels. I would image that many wedding and event photographers would feel the same way. While ISO 6400 and below is usable in many conditions, I think Canon could have pushed the envelope further with their current sensor technology had they decided to use larger photosites (and fewer megapixels) on the 5D Mark II sensor. Nevertheless, the Canon 5D Mark II and Nikon D700 are probably the best overall DSLRs in the market in terms of cost vs. The lenses and accessories in your camera bag are probably the deciding factor if you have been eyeballing this pair of cameras. And, if you are looking to jump into a system at this level, I can't give you a good reason in terms of image quality to avoid either one. Unless you have a need for 21 megapixels at low ISOs, then both of these cameras deserve due consideration. Adorama, which are my three favorite, and also trustworthy, online vendors. Look forward to more reviews and news on both of these cameras here at Photography Bay. December 27th, 2008 at 1:04 pm first image (left) is nikon, and canon on the right, i see a slightly sharper image on the canon, but this might be the lens "fault". i've made a test, by cleaning noise (for highest iso), thru a filter ... and there are pretty similar, canon is up (better) by few procentes (10-12%) ... December 27th, 2008 at 4:10 pm Can you say what the shutter speeds were for these shots Eric? In comparing ISO values it is of course important to know all the exposure details. Nikon or Canon might be a little off with the actual ISO values. With different exposure times comparing is not really transparent. December 27th, 2008 at 5:55 pm @Amedi - I'll give you a quick range. ISO 100 shots were at 5 seconds for the 5D and 4 seconds for the D700. You can pull the full EXIF from the originals if you want additional exposure information. white balance is colder on the 5D mkII and there's a 1/3rd stop exposure difference. These cameras may also have different responses under different light. If so exposure can be off by a random amount, due to 60Hz flicker. A third of a stop may seem insignificant, but raising the gain on a sensor raises the noise floor, which squashes dynamic range. At 25600 a third of a stop could be the difference between noise in the shadows and none. Too bad it doesn't have a more robust feature set, other than the video. December 28th, 2008 at 1:31 am Yeah this is the first time I've seen the D700 not perform better on ISO. That lens is way better than the 50mm 18 which i used for years. The detail on the d700 pictures wasn't very good either. That canon 14 lens is on another level compared to the nikon 18 But perhaps an easier option is to just get the canon 50 18 But still I think better with the nicer lens so it's more about the ISO. December 28th, 2008 at 1:39 am This may be old news, but here it is for ya. The DXO site comparing the camera sensors has Nikon D700 a bit ahead of the Canon 5D MKII for dynamic range and low-light ISO performance. This takes the lenses and other shutter variables out of the equation. D700 focusing ability and frame rate beats Canon 5D MK II easily. If Nikon had the HD video they'd be eating more of Canon's lunch. December 28th, 2008 at 12:34 pm Interesting - but you have to admit that both images at 25600 are pretty poor. I suppose for that "must" photo it could be useful, but sure couldn't see using it for much else. I remember having used a Canon f 095 lens years ago - now THAT was a hunk of glass! December 28th, 2008 at 3:16 pm Despite a few differences in the test setup I think the performance of each camera is clearly seen and doubt that correct the differences would dramatically change the results. Even though the Canon performs better we should not overlook the fact that both are remarkably good. If prints were made from both cameras the difference would be less noticeable and am sure that even prints from the highest ISO would be usable. December 28th, 2008 at 4:30 pm I've always felt, from my own work, that the proper way to make comparisons is with the cameras at full resolution, at the same print size. Bringing both cameras to 100% is not the way we use images. Neither is cutting down the resolution on the higher resolution camera. Who would buy such a camera, and then cut out the main advantage from buying it? If both of these cameras were used to make a 13 x 19, or a 17 x 25 print, at full resolution, how would each look? As for the DXO results that Eric cites, I feel as though their results are bogus. If you look at the individual charts for each test, the conclusions you can find will be different. December 28th, 2008 at 4:39 pm Guys, the lenses used make no difference here. Both the 18 and the 14 are good enough for these tests in the center, esp. In fact, both Canon and Nikon's 14 lenses are inferior to their 18 lenses at the corners. When you get an image with twice the pixels, and drop it to the same number as the lessor camera, you will always get a sharper image from the higher pixel sensor. The image from the D3x will also be sharper than that of the D3/700 when brought down to the same rez. December 28th, 2008 at 8:13 pm Completely agree with melgross. If you take any image and resize it down by approx 50% it will look ... |