Top Geek
Forum Addict
I knew you'd come around to the right way of thinking :lol:
Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]
- Thread starter phuckingduck
- Start date
Top Geek
Forum Addict
Woah... I only bothered to look up just now that the 1D MKIV is APS-H! (I just remembered that they use "s" to distinguish their full-frame models). Now why would anyone buy this over the D3s at the same price?
Last edited:
(edit: ^ sports guys and paps like the 1.3x crop)
A better analogy is a street car compared to a race car - doesn't matter which camera (still or motion pikshure) is which car. They're both cars, they both have four wheels, an engine, some gears, and a squishy driver. One putts down to the shops to pick up groceries, one just zips around a track for a little while then goes into a garage. The idea behind them is the same, they go faster than a person could under their own power, they've just been designed for different purposes, just like a still camera is made to take pictures and a video camera is made to take videos. They're both cameras, both cameras have a lens, a sensor/film, a viewfinder and a squishy operator, but they're designed for different goals. They are not worlds apart.
That's where Nigel comes in, Nigel wants to be a race driver on weekends, but he can't afford a race car and a commuter car, so he buys a fast street legal car that he can wring around a track on the odd weekend. He also bought a DSLR with video because while he can afford pro quality still lenses that cost a thousand bucks a piece, he can't afford pro cinema lenses that cost at least five thousand bucks a pop. No, Nigel won't settle for a consumer camcorder with a 2/3" sensor, he wants to have good image quality and artistic control over depth of field, so his only viable option is to use his DSLR for video recording. Just the same, he doesn't want a $500 dollar rust bucket for a track car.
A better analogy is a street car compared to a race car - doesn't matter which camera (still or motion pikshure) is which car. They're both cars, they both have four wheels, an engine, some gears, and a squishy driver. One putts down to the shops to pick up groceries, one just zips around a track for a little while then goes into a garage. The idea behind them is the same, they go faster than a person could under their own power, they've just been designed for different purposes, just like a still camera is made to take pictures and a video camera is made to take videos. They're both cameras, both cameras have a lens, a sensor/film, a viewfinder and a squishy operator, but they're designed for different goals. They are not worlds apart.
That's where Nigel comes in, Nigel wants to be a race driver on weekends, but he can't afford a race car and a commuter car, so he buys a fast street legal car that he can wring around a track on the odd weekend. He also bought a DSLR with video because while he can afford pro quality still lenses that cost a thousand bucks a piece, he can't afford pro cinema lenses that cost at least five thousand bucks a pop. No, Nigel won't settle for a consumer camcorder with a 2/3" sensor, he wants to have good image quality and artistic control over depth of field, so his only viable option is to use his DSLR for video recording. Just the same, he doesn't want a $500 dollar rust bucket for a track car.
Last edited:
Top Geek
Forum Addict
https://pic.armedcats.net/e/ep/epp_b/2009/10/20/i_reject_your_reality_matrix.jpg
Fine, then someone needs to make a dedicated video camera for this, ie.: Nikon should make an F-mount video camera (that would actually be pretty cool), but leave video the heck out of my SLR. It's useless in an SLR anyway, what with the crappy controls and rolling shutter.
Top Geek
Forum Addict
R&D spent on pointless crap that could have been better spent making a useful feature?
Top Geek
Forum Addict
OK, I'll concede that Canon wins the "most stupid pointless feature" award for this :lol:
Still, I never said direct print was a useful feature (it's not).
chaos386
.sa = bad driver!
As someone who owns an SLR with video, I'm going to have to disagree with your hate. I see my camera as a creative tool to have fun with, and video expands upon that in much the same way that macro & tilt shift lenses or powerful flashes expand upon it by letting you take new kinds of shots. I also disagree that video interferes with the still photo capabilities of an SLR, since the only hardware changes to the camera are a mic, speaker, and possibly more focus on making lenses quieter (which the nature photographers already appreciate). Everything else is just software.
And in my experience, rolling shutter is only problematic on Nikon cameras.
nomix
True Viking
- Joined
- May 26, 2005
- Messages
- 7,293
- Location
- Norway
- Car(s)
- Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Because the 1D4 is a Canon camera, and as such, it will take Canon lenses, especially the lenses in the Canon L-range. As every publication in the world has something like a million L-lenses (one paper i Norway had a bucket full of old L-glass for sale to employees), the paper will buy them, the freelancers who work for that paper will buy them, the freelancers with Canon gear to start with will buy them.
Pretty much the same guys who's using the 1Dmk3 today, and didn't get the D3.
The D3 is slightly better, but I feel the Nikon range is not as good as the Canon range when we're referring to pro lenses.
Dr_Q
Well-Known Member
Actually, isn't it a lot harder to make a cropped sensor handle noise very well at high ISOs? If so, this sensor technology in a full frame sized sensor could be a winning combination. Another major plus point of used a cropped sensor is that the sensor will always use the sweet spot of any lens you care to put on it.
nomix
True Viking
- Joined
- May 26, 2005
- Messages
- 7,293
- Location
- Norway
- Car(s)
- Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
That's true. The 16-35L is quite soft in the corners and vignettes like a pig on FF, while it's perferctly good on APS-H. As long as the pixel count is the same in the same generation, you should have the same performance.
But it rarely is.
But it rarely is.
hansvonaxion
Well-Known Member
Of course it's mainly bull, but a lot of these kinds of rules are worked out by people without a full working knowledge of the situation. TV stations ask for a complete ban on all video recording devices (and pay big dollars for the rights), the league pressures the stadiums to enforce said ban and they do so. It's then going to take the print news agencies to negotiate with the league to change things. Of course, the media groups who buy the TV rights probably also run print media and are in some way shooting themselves in the foot, but if they have the TV rights I guess that trumps all.
As for the video, I think wedding photographers could find video quite useful in their DSLR. If a photographer can offer HD video as well as stills then he's ahead of the game. And wedding photography is massive.
Also, getting back to the first point, HD video will at some point in the future take over a massive portion of what photography now covers. While video coverage will likely never (say never) replace still photography completely, video doesn't ever miss a moment. So I think the video features we are seeing in DSLR's now is a prelude to what we can expect in the future. Even in a "still" camera you could have high-res, high-speed images being buffered constantly, press the shutter after the action happens and you've captured the previous few seconds and the perfect shot (Casio P&S now takes 60fps@6MP) and I believe some models have a similar buffer function.
CG takes over from product photography.
Video takes over from photojournalism.
Photography is dead.
Last edited:
Dr_Q
Well-Known Member
That's an interesting concept hansvonaxion, but imagine if you saw something really fantastic and started recording. This event went on for say 2 minutes, you may have to look through the equivalent of 2880 frames to find the precise moment you are looking for. I don't even want to think about how time consuming and frustrating that could be. Also, Photography is about capturing a moment, to me it would be a bit defeatist to capture footage of a period of time and then pick that moment out of there.
As a bit of a photographical convervative, I of course have to object to all of this.
As a bit of a photographical convervative, I of course have to object to all of this
.
hansvonaxion
Well-Known Member
Yes, but you are looking at it from the photog's POV. Editors don't give a damn about anything but the final image, how you got there is irrelevant.
I don't know what event you might be referring to that could take 2 mins! Of course, after shooting sporting events with burst mode I know how painful it can be to try to pick the one frame to use, but an interface more like a video editor the job could be a lot simpler. If you could scroll through your photos like you can with video footage it would be a lot easier.
I don't know what event you might be referring to that could take 2 mins! Of course, after shooting sporting events with burst mode I know how painful it can be to try to pick the one frame to use, but an interface more like a video editor the job could be a lot simpler. If you could scroll through your photos like you can with video footage it would be a lot easier.
chaos386
.sa = bad driver!
You do realize you've just said that seeking through a 2 minute video is time consuming, right? I shudder to think how long it takes you to fast-forward through a movie!
So you're against continuous shooting as well? Might as well be against the "take a thousand pictures of an event, pick out ten good ones to show off" ideology as well.
Dr_Q
Well-Known Member
I said equivalent of, not literally 2880 frames. Having said that, surely if you wanted to pick out a very specific moment from footage you wouldn't be watching the footage at the usual 24 fps. When I was using my telephoto lens a lot I was continuously shooting literally everything. When I got back and reviewed what I'd shot most of it was just boring, with the odd nice shot scattered out very sparingly. I much prefer taking a few shots in very quick succession and then picking out my favourite one. Obviously this only applies to me, if I was earning my living as sports photography I'd be fucked .
.
Paddy
Well-Known Member
I've actually recently started using the smallest memory cards I have here, that'll allow me only 30-40 RAW images and leave the rest of the cards at home when I'm on a photo walk. It REALLY makes you stop and think about what your doing, brings me back to my old film days. Has even given me a little boost about getting back into things again ...
phuckingduck
is awesome!
Film doesn't have a delete button
maxtortheone
Chicken Fiddler
Looked at one of these at a local swap meet
Wanted 80RON(~18 Euros) for it. Loved the viewfinder and it's luminosity, but the mirrored image can confuse you. Also, I don't really have the time or funds to start investing into wide film and manually processing it.
Also saw an Action Sampler
Looked at it and inside. It's just wrong
Wanted 80RON(~18 Euros) for it. Loved the viewfinder and it's luminosity, but the mirrored image can confuse you. Also, I don't really have the time or funds to start investing into wide film and manually processing it.
Also saw an Action Sampler
Looked at it and inside. It's just wrong