EricM Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 breather Guy, breathe, 1, 2, 3... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Thanks guy's just trying to show some of the images from the DMR obviously not my real work but some snapshots to show some highlights of the system. Please if you like your 5d than do use that as best you can, but until you test the systems and run side by side images the difference are much more apparent than on the web, unfortunetly that I can't show you that part of it. The web is taking about 2 stops off the DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 What I really don't understand, is that some will say you can't make any judgments from limited web-based photos, and then subsequently post web photos to illustrate an attribute or claim with respect to the camera/lens from which the photo was made. Does that make any sense? www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I don't see anything wrong with using the web. It's srgb and when converting an rgb to srgb correctly, it's a fine place to evaluate. Why not? It sure beats a srgb machine print. Losing two stops of DR becasue it's on the web is an incorrect statement, Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Guy, I hope I did not rub it wrong way. :-) My post was not to discredit what you were saying. I fully agree and support what you said. I'm actually all for the excitement about your gear. After all you should be happy and confident in the tools you are using. I think in the case of those who know what they are doing like Marc and you and others who get their results and preffer the look they are getting with DMR - that's all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Here's an old photo from my sony digicam. I'm losing two stops on the web. It's really TONS BETTER at home.<BR><P> <center> <img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images15/Meter.jpg"<BR> <I>Shocked that a quarter only gets you 10 minutes</I> </center> www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wim_van_velzen Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I can imagine some DMR users are convincing themselves that it delivers better results than is actually true.<br /> Here nevertheless I think some people like to convince themselves that the DMR (which they don't own) doesn't deliver better results - because if it would, they would feel some envy. <p> Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 That would be a correct logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Lovely catch, Brad. Dare I say I even see the glow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 The bird in the top photo is certainly better on screen the top of that nesting spot is like open shade so maybe it is that one shot but I do see it degrade bad , maybe I am doing something wrong on my end here , I am using save for web and dropping it down to 500 pixels , honestly for some reason they show up better on Fred's site, not sure why that is. Also I convert to srgb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 quote I can imagine some DMR users are convincing themselves that it delivers better results than is actually true You have to be joking , I been doing this for 30 years there is no dillision here on my end. If it sucks it does not go in the bag , pretty simply logic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Okay I opened this up quite a bit to see if it holds on the web , let's see.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Still a little dark but much better. The orginal could have been a little dark to begin with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Gut. He said some. That is not all inclusive. It doesn't have include you. If you are confident in your choices then take it as a compliment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I just wish the Canon users will make the ESO forum photo friendly enough to see the Canyon glow there. Even the LOMO folks have a better format. And yes, I agree that a P&S digicam is more than enough for p.net. It is all about the 3rd eye and the sixth finger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wim_van_velzen Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Guy,<p>I suppose it is my lack of subtlety in English, that you misunderstood me.<p>What I meant is this: people hear DMR-owners talk about how great their DMR is. Some of the people who hear this, think "it is just because they paid so much money, that they say the like the camera so much".<br />I myself think (reading this thread and the one on Fred Miranda) that the DMR really does very well (thinking about getting one myself...)<p>What I then said that even if it were true that some DMR-owners are exaggerating their DMR's virtue, that it is even more true that there are other people (non DMR-owners) who just cannot accept that the DMR is such a fine piece of equipment.<p>I hope I made myself clear now, but I doubt it :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Rene I know but i have yet to see one DMR owner sell there camera for not liking the images at all, it is kind of wierd people that have bought them have bought more leica gear because they like the files better. That thread of 5000 posts there is not one complaint about the images. More operational issues than anything , try that with any body and people are whining all the time, i can't explain it but no one has whined about there images. To me that is something else and it can't be dilusional. It's like people actually think the 5d is better than the 1dsMKII and has better DR than the 1dsMKII. Now that is dilliusional. The 1dsMKII is the best Canon makes period. Today , i actually liked the files from the 1ds better but that is another thread . the 5d is a nice camera but it is only about 75 percent of the 1dsMKII as far as image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy_mancuso Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Actually that helped alot , my apologizes than. Don't feel bad my english sucks and that is my native tongue. LOL LOL LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 5D is 75% of 1Ds?! The third eye was not working properly, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 FWIW Marc the first shot reminds me of Provia 400 - my favorite 400ISO color film. I find that with today's RAW tools one can achieve lots of 'film like' looks in post processing. At the same time I don't really understand the quest for Lfilm look'. I suppose as long as not a crappy overptocessed digital look we should strive for a 'great look'. Somehow, though, 'great look' doesn't sound glamorous enough... I've shot plenty crappy looking Provia 400 intersected by some beauties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasper1 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Dudes the technical quality of all the pixs posted are on a level. Bradley wins on what matters dudes the pix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Guy I believe you. I believe that given a good photograph the DMR is great, the 1Ds is great, the 5D is great, the .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Still, in the end, it's the light that separates wow pix from the average. If Marc *only* posted his 4th pic as sole testament to the virtues of the DMR, would everybody be reacting the same? www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Guy posted a lot a stuff before as well. The images from him looked impressive to me. So did the ones from a couple of others (Peter Werner, Jorge, ..). No it is not only the Hollywood shots that give the impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Brad, I was thinking the same thing when the first post appeared. Perhaps Marc wanted to show the details of the shadow under the awning. 800 ISO limit sounds like a bit of a bummer though. I have never registered this limitation when Iread about the DMR in the past. Seems that when I was shooting the 5D I went 99% 1600 iso. The 100ISO shots I took could be less than 10. Maybe it will change when summer rolls into Maine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now