|
|
|
| Saturday, November 07, 2009 9:33 AM | |||
Location United Kingdom South Yorkshire Barnsley |  Quote from banditit's not just about MARKETING...have you actually used a FF camera? YES, and for what I do it made absolutely no difference to the finished result, my customers couldn't tell the difference between an image shot on FF or one shot on APS size sensor. I get better dynamic range and equally good image quality from a four year old 10 mp APS size camera than I did from a 5D and an L lens, and my existing cameras give me everything I need and more. Strangely enough, the most financially successful (£4K+) digital image I have ever taken was taken on a Canon A40 2mp Compact Camera at a time when the the high end SLR and Bridge cameras were 6Mp. |
||
 |   |
||
| Saturday, November 07, 2009 9:41 AM | ||
 Location United Kingdom Lincolnshire Barton Upon Humber | What APS-C camera are you using cos my 5D and L glass is significantly better than all my other cameras ?? I dont think the financial success of an image has much to do with the quality tho .. a mobile phone image in a nightclub can earn you thousands yet a fantastic quality landscape could earn you nowt :o) My largest commercial print is approx. 9 foot by 6 foot from a 300D but I know the 5D and L would have produced a much nicer image. Also - who were your customers cos one of my best ever portraits didn't impress a friend (in fact they didn't give it a second glance even though it was a beautiful portrait of their young child) yet they would probably have LOVED a Parasol shopping centre special :o) No accounting for a customers taste and expertise ... |
|
| Don't believe anything I say above. | ||
| |
|
| Saturday, November 07, 2009 10:30 AM | |||
Location United Kingdom South Yorkshire Barnsley | Monstersnowman... Just in case of an intervening post.My customers are my customers and irrespective of who they are if they are pleased and satisfied with the results of my work then I am satisfied too. At the end of the day they are paying me and their opinions and taste are certainly far more relevant in that situation than mine.I borrowed a 5D to evaluate it as I was considering FF as my next replacement step, but in the end it didn't come any where near justifying the move.The camera I refer to is a Sony and not even an SLR, but I am not going down the road of what is better than what else. I just don't see any advantage in FF for myself and what I do, If it is an advantage to you then that is good for you, but I still stand by my original post that the whole Digital photo industry is significantly marketing lead. | ||
| |
||
| Saturday, November 07, 2009 12:11 PM | ||
Location United Kingdom Lincolnshire Barton Upon Humber | I also used a Sony bridge camera for the last 3 years till i got my 5D. Sony DSC-R1 .. almsot all the images I sell are from that camera .. it was far superior to the 300d and 350d with kit lens - probably cos it had the same sized sensor but far superior Carl Zeiss T* glass. I do feel the quality from the 5D is far better - not sharper though ... but I will never get rid of the R1 .. as for the 300d and 350d well .. they never come out to play at all now. | |
| Don't believe anything I say above. | ||
| |
|
| Sunday, November 08, 2009 10:37 AM | ||
 Location United Kingdom Nottinghamshire Mansfield | Quote from Aesthetique At base ISO an image from a D300 has higher resolution than an image from a D3/D700 (Amateur Photographer Test). Larger pixels require a stronger low pass filter to avoid colour aliasing, therefore you lose resolution not gain it..... smaller pixels ARE sharper. Been trying to find an article this morning that did a big crop vs full frame. They compared 4 Canons, one of which was full frame (the original 5D) and three cropped sensors of various resolutions. The full frame had the sharpest resolution, and second was the cropped sensor that had the lowest pixel count. Low in number, but larger in size. |
|
| |
|
| Sunday, November 08, 2009 11:21 AM | |||
Location United Kingdom South Yorkshire Barnsley | Quote from monstersnowman I also used a Sony bridge camera for the last 3 years till i got my 5D. Sony DSC-R1 .. almsot all the images I sell are from that camera .. it was far superior to the 300d and 350d with kit lens - probably cos it had the same sized sensor but far superior Carl Zeiss T* glass. I do feel the quality from the 5D is far better - not sharper though ... but I will never get rid of the R1 .. as for the 300d and 350d well .. they never come out to play at all now. I refer to the R1. I still use mine when I can prise it out of the grip of my wife, in my opinion one of the best Digital cameras evermade. I was never too keen onthe flip top screen but have to admit that I have found it useful once or twice. Like you 75% of my digital image sales come from that camera. I did the comparison between that and the original 5D and decided that the R1 (APS) still gave me what I needed from a camera and decided against moving to FF. I also have a couple of Sony SLR's which between them are now beginning to creep up in image sales. |
||
| |
||
| Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:27 AM | ||
Location United Kingdom Dorset Poole | Quote from ph_oto MARKETING !!!!!!!!!!!..... The manufacturers are all playing the numbers game, first they kept telling us that we need more pixies to get better photographs and naturally we have to pay MORE money. Then they start to tell us that there is a limit to how many pixies they can fit on any given size of sensor before the image starts to deteriorate, so then we have to have bigger sensors which of course are going to cost us a lot MORE money.
So "bigger pixies" I don't think so because the numbers game is still running and a bigger sensor means that they can squeeze on more of the dreaded little pixies until they are just the same size as they were on smaller sensors... there are just more of em.
Bigger sensors = more Mb's per image which means bigger (MORE EXPENSIVE) memory cards and MORE expensive lenses, filters, etc.
We then need bigger faster Computers that need bigger faster Hard Drives, more RAM, better software etc. etc. etc. and so the snowball keeps rolling and costing us MORE and MORE and MORE money
|
|
| |
|
| Thursday, November 12, 2009 2:42 AM | |||
Location United Kingdom Strathclyde | What's puzzling me is, the OP describes himself as a semi -pro and he even has to ask this question in the first place ......... Its basic photography knowledge | ||
| |
||
| Thursday, November 12, 2009 3:10 AM | |||
 Location United Kingdom Kent Chatham | I have a crop sensor D300 and a full frame D700. The future is full frame, so investing in DX lenses is a waste of money in my opinion. For that reason I bought the Nikon 24-70 rather than the DX 17-55. The 70-200 VR can be used as a studio lens on the D700, but on the D300 it has too long a focal length. I have used noise ninja on quite a few D300 shots, but noise appears to be missing on all the D700 shots. I have heard that the D300 has nices skin tones than the D700. The 51 focus points do cover a much larger area in the D300 viewfinder than on the D700. If you want the ideal wedding camera then the D700 is an obvious choise as you can shoot at ISO 1000+ with very little noise - e.g. in a dimly lit church with no flash. If you only shoot at ISO 200 in the studio, then there is not a huge difference in the image quality between the D300 and D700, which are both 12Mp (megapixels). Personally I think that 12Mp is probably the sweet spt for APS sized camera sensors, and that the benefits of more pixels on more tighly packed sensors will be offset by a deteriation in noise levels above the base ISO levels. Anyone buying a 20+ Mp camer in the future should be looking Full Frame. Bearing this in mind, it is worth preparing for the future and ensuring that new investment in lenses are full-frame compatible. |
||
| Love of beauty is Taste. The creation of beauty is Art - Ralph Waldo Emerson | |||
| |
||
| Thursday, November 12, 2009 3:54 AM | ||
 Location United Kingdom East Yorkshire Driffield | The comparison of FX v DX is not unlike the old 35mm v medium format comparisons. With the comparison between 35mm and medium format, the negs from the MF cameras were already substantially enlarged as a starting point so, it was obvious that better definition could be achieved as one printed larger if the lenses were comparably sharp in both formats when the images were taken. For digital images that are not going to be printed above 10 x 8 or are used for net use, if the images are taken in good light with equally high quality lenses, then most people wouldn't see a significant difference if any, between an image taken with a crop sensor and full frame camera. Based on today's current technology, it will only begin to show in images taken under lower light conditions where the larger sensor with comparatively fewer and larger photo-sites will have a clear advantage with regard to signal to noise issues. Generally, if one begins to enlarge the images substantially, then the FX sensor should again have an advantage in sharper detail due to better light collection but, it has it's limits. It doesn't necessarily follow that just because an image was taken with an FX camera that it's bound to give better resolution than a DX sensor - it is also relevant to the actual image size as recorded by the sensor and the ratio of enlargement, similar to that of the neg film comparisons. Unless the subject within the image fills the whole of the sensor area in both formats, it's quite possible that the DX format could actually produce equal or even apparently sharper images which were taken in good light! To get the most from an FX sensor camera, it has to be used advantageously for the difference to be evident. Images with a high concentration of shadow detail would definitely benefit from the FX sensor but it will depend upon the light and detail in the image as to whether or not the FX camera has a clear advantage over the DX and could vary from image to image, depending upon the lighting and image content. That is why some people will see things in different ways with regard to FX v DX and don't see a substantial difference between the two formats. |
|
| www.le-femme.co.uk | ||
| |
|
|
|
