Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 68
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    Regardless of whether or not Sony users want video and better high ISO, the fact that Sony is not incorporating them will make them lose market share.

    For example I never use MLU and DOF preview on the a700. The other who has the a300/350 and so on were bitching about their bodies not having MLU and DOF Preview.

    And it's not like video is taking away anything from still photography anyway. The price difference is hardly worth the debate when you compare the D90 and a550.
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr«
    FLUIDR

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Well that was kinda the point. Sony (maybe) listened to the enthusiasts, didn't incorporate flawed video, were slated by the reviewers and lost market share because of it.

    I can't think why you wouldn't use MLU, unless you don't use a tripod.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    Ok Don, I get that you were only half serious but Backstage was mostly about helping users to improve their photography not about feedback for Sony, at least not in Sony's eyes. Look at the debacle over Video; 90% of enthusiasts said they didn't want it but the A700 was soundly trashed by reviewers for the lack of it even though the video in competing cameras was rubbish anyway. 90% of us still have no use for video but we are not driving the market and we will get it whether or not.
    i dont know where you get those numbers from. forum members, if thats what you;re referring to, make up a tiny part of the overall market.

    ISO 5000? I find myself having no use for it; the reduced dynamic range and loss of detail making it unacceptable (in a low light shot). We should step back from this fixation on High ISO which is as big a distraction as was the race for more megapixels. Of course there will be improvements in the current sensor techology but it will be incremental rather than giant steps until something new comes along, but I wouldn't hold your breath. More likely the DSLR is replaced by EVIL cameras.
    well similar to video, you have no use for it cos you CAN'T use it. thats cos you cant shoot past 1600 with any real confidence with the a700. 3200 at a real stretch. iso5000 on a FF camera is perfectly useable. i can shoot at 6400 now with the same confidence i shot at 1600 on a d300 which was already a stop better than the a700.

    the bar lifted with the d3/ d700, then lifted again with the d3s. they werent incremental steps, they were pretty giant leaps. but this kind of performance isnt and wont be available on consumer grade cameras for quite some time to come.

    rarely do i ththink at don has a point, but somewhere among his mumbo jumbo about malleable sensors and like silliness, with iso he is certainly spot on with sony. look at what canon could manage with a MP packed 7d and mkII, certainly not at the levels of the lower MP's nikons but still, MASSIVE improvements considering the pixel density. sny have got to work out how to at least equal the 7d. then you have the 1dMkIV which is an 18mp aps-h dslr and is only a stop or so behind the d3s...to me that is incredibly impressive. at least as impressive as the d3s.

    i cant help but think that don just picked the wrong system for what he wants. he wants photographic excellence and sony just isnt aiming for that. they're aiming for above average performance on cheap cameras. thats all they are now and all they really want to be in at least the short to medium term.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    i dont know where you get those numbers from. forum members, if thats what you;re referring to, make up a tiny part of the overall market.
    The numbers are not statistics but a best guess from what enthusiasts were saying in general about video and yes, they do make up a small part of the overall market which was also my point and maybe why Sony got it wrong.

    well similar to video, you have no use for it cos you CAN'T use it. thats cos you cant shoot past 1600 with any real confidence with the a700.
    That's not the reason, it's just that I generally don't shoot in low light situations and use a flash if I am. I may have a different opinion if I were habitually shooting at indoor events.

    Sony have a different approach to CaNikon and use a stronger colour filter in the Bayer array which simply passes less light to the sensor. When you introduce the D700 into the equation you are just comparing apples with oranges. The D700 has a 12MP FF sensor, so compared to my 12MP A700 camera, the photosites are 2.25 times bigger and that much more sensitive. I have said in previous posts that I would be happy with a 12/15MP Sony FF with that in mind. I just hope that Sony don't listen to those people banging on about high ISO and make the mistake of reducing the strength of the colour filters; I'd rather they took away the AA filter.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    When you introduce the D700 into the equation you are just comparing apples with oranges. The D700 has a 12MP FF sensor, so compared to my 12MP A700 camera, the photosites are 2.25 times bigger and that much more sensitive. I have said in previous posts that I would be happy with a 12/15MP Sony FF with that in mind. I just hope that Sony don't listen to those people banging on about high ISO and make the mistake of reducing the strength of the colour filters; I'd rather they took away the AA filter.
    i use flash vastly more than high iso's aswell. i'm introducing the d700 purely from the point of view of your comment about not having use for iso5000. no direct comparison is intended. all i'm saying is that when you have the options available to you, almost any option, then chances are that you find uses for it. using these insane iso's means that your flash, even in very dim conditions, becomes simply fill flash playing a supporting role cos you can crank up the iso to get the background playing the star.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Rooz, I only said ISO5000 because that's what Don was touting for. I just think these crazy high iso's are are a distraction just like the megapixel race.

    I think your point about using highISO to extend the flash range is well made. Do you mainly use the technique outdoors?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    I just think these crazy high iso's are are a distraction just like the megapixel race.

    I think your point about using highISO to extend the flash range is well made. Do you mainly use the technique outdoors?
    peter, i think both of them have their place, MP's and hi iso's. i do agree that i think far too much time and effort goes into them but technology has taken giant leaps in both areas which makes both of these things work much better than we could have imagined possible only 2 years ago. personally, i would prefer they focus on giant leaps in dynamic range but i'm sure thats to come. to a lesser degree i like the evil cameras and movie modes and i'm sure in a couple of years we will have them downpat too.

    as mentioned, the D3 was a game changer with iso, nikon basically proved that you could do hi iso very very well on FF cameras and even iso6400 really is something that could be rendered of a very high quality. the d3s set the bar higher again. then canon raised the bar with the 7d and MkIV proving that more mp's can still be had while maintaining very good iso quality. look at dxo mark sensor performance and you can clearly see this newer generation of cameras producing significantly better quality up hi while maintaining detail, colour and DR.

    iso5600 f2.8 1/80s. cant use flash for this one, but i can get the shot i wanted while still maintaining the right colour and detail.



    for me, the flexibility of being able to shoot at 1/125s, f4, iso6400 in low light with fill flash and have an image that i can enlarge with excellent quality is not only a nice to have feature, its a significant tool. anytime we shoot with flash we try to create the illusion of light so that people dont notice that we used flash...today that is possible in more circumstances than was available before.

    dont also forget that when you improve the performance at 6400 it means by default that lower iso's significantly improve aswell. shooting at 800 is like shooting at 200, shooting at 1600 is like shooting at 400 etc... thats a huge step. 2 cases in point, both with flash...

    #1: iso 800 here and the quality even large is superb. in macro work the detail retention is crucial so iso800 would really be a last resort but today i have no qualms about it at all. this is shot at f8 to give me a tad more dof, a larger aperture could have been used to drop my iso, but the whole point here is that i didnt want to use a larger aperture, i wanted to stop down and the sensir performance means i could.



    #2: ISO1250. same as above. barely a spec of noise here. eye detail is superb. colour is perfect. no splotchyness, no WB issues. shot at 2.8 and keeping my shutter speed up to 1/320s to make sure i keep a moving kid sharp and keep eliminate any lens shake potential of a 300mm lens. yes its stabilised, but my kid is only stabilised when he's sleeping. lol



    auto iso, (the best feature on dslr in recent times bar none), also means that i can set the max iso to 3200 and have no worries about quality...6400 if i am careful with exposure. another thing i dont have to worry about when shooting.

    so while hi iso quality is something that on the surface of things seems not so significant, the improvments it makes in practical terms at lower iso's in particular means that its far more useful than you first think.
    Last edited by Rooz; 04-05-2010 at 02:42 PM.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Some nice shots, Rooz.

    I'm not sure I'd agree that D3 was a game changer, rather that Nikon made good choices. The better performance at higher ISO's is directly linked to the size of the photosites.

    Canon MKIV 15MP Crop 5.7Ám 1320
    Sony A 900 24MP FF__ 5.9Ám 1431
    N i kon__D3 12MP FF__ 8.4Ám 2290

    Looking at these three cameras you can see how that correlation works. The Ám figures are the pixel pitch rather than the actual diameter of the photosite but I don't think that matters in principle. The A900 has exactly twice the pixel count of the D3 with a correspondingly smaller photosite, gathering half as much light and with a lower ISO capability. Sony focussed on megapixels rather than ISO; had they chosen to go for 15/18MP with larger photosites and therefore better ISO they would have had a much better camera in my view. There again, Studio and Landscape Photographers would not agree, proving the old adage that you can't please all of the people all of the time.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,760
    all in favor of reopening the site raise your hand!!!!!!


























































    .
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    Some nice shots, Rooz.

    I'm not sure I'd agree that D3 was a game changer, rather that Nikon made good choices. The better performance at higher ISO's is directly linked to the size of the photosites.

    Canon MKIV 15MP Crop 5.7Ám 1320
    Sony A 900 24MP FF__ 5.9Ám 1431
    N i kon__D3 12MP FF__ 8.4Ám 2290.
    yes all true, but the 5d was FF aswell so the photosite and pixel density is the same as the D3. and the 5DMkII is also a a FF camera with the same MP's as the a900 but it holds the image together much better when the iso goes up.

    all i'm pointing out is that when the d3 was released, most people thought that 3200 was a stetch, even for a FF sensor. the d3 completely changed those expectations. the d3s has again, changed the expectations people have about what the current cmos sensors can do.

    the a900 and the d3x were never meant to be great performers at hi iso, so this is not a criticism of those individual cameras, more abotu what is actually possible with todays technology.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •