yog_sothoth

<p>I guess shooting the Canon out of a Cannon was beyond their budget. </p>

<p>The 7D and 5D series are great for hobbiests. The 1D series are big, heavy, significantly more expensive, and are less hobbiest friendly IMHO. Their advantages over the 5D series and 7D are often not amazingly useful for a hobbiest as well. If I had a choice between a 1Ds Mk III and a 7D for chasing my kids I would grab the 7D. If I was doing studio photography the 1Ds Mk III would be the clear choice. </p>

<p>That said, if someone wants to take pictures of their family with a 1DX they will get great photos and it will cost less than many people spend on upkeep, fuel, and mooring fees for their boat. </p>

<p>I use the pop-up flash on my 7D quite a lot. As pointed out earlier, on a 7D the pop up flash is very useful. Indoors you can hold an off-camera flash in your off hand and aim it however you want and control the extra flash from the 7D. If you want some emergency fill flash the pop-up flash is nice and faster than mounting a second flash. All in all, having a pop-up flash is better than not having one. </p>

 

<p>Kodak publishes the development curves for their films. They tend to show around 3 decades of sensitivity with some films giving a bit more. This would amount to 10-11 stops and is consistent with Alan's tests.</p>

<p>Where are there tests that show other levels of dynamic range?</p>

Did you impress yourself with your own cleverness? In that case you have likely achieved uniqueness, which I am sure

you consider a good thing.

You could expose for the groom and develop for the sunlit white dress, but the skin may wind up somewhere odd and the

rest of the picture would be kind of blah. Dodging and burning can improve things, but heavily dodged and burned areas

can get grainy. Multiple scans of the same negative can get you some "HDR" effect, but with extra grain.

 

I had a mishap with a flash photo using porta 400. I underexposed by two or so stops. There was shadow detail, but the

image was clearly affected by the under exposure. You could call that a success or a failure depending on how you look

at it. If you put important exposure ranges in the shallow wings of the exposure/density curve the picture quality will

suffer.

<p>I should have addded "Using standard development times." Actually, if you overexpose and underdevelop you can get a couple more out of tmax 400. </p>

<p>The zone system would have more zones if that was true. Nine or ten is more in line with my experience. </p>

<p> Rationally predicting collecting behaviors is challenging, as collecting is not a rational activity. People collect all sorts of bizarre things. D30s were mass produced but what fraction of them are still working? In time there will be very few of them. Working batteries and memory cards will also become scarce as they are thrown out and degrade. They may not have to function in 20 years, of course, depending on the fad. Functionality is not important to stamp collectors. </p>

<p>When people are recording images directly off of their retinas (or whatever else replaces digital cameras) some people will fondly recall when they were younger and camera sensors were made of old-fashioned silicon. They may pay money for this nostalgia. </p>

 

<p>I am a technically-minded person, and I like to look for measurable metrics to answer questions. I think that the ratings system could give an insight as to if WE's photos are Banal. The ire that was brought out by this observation seems to show that it has struck a nerve in many people. </p>

<p>Tim Lookingbill's responses are was what I was looking for and cover the issue very well. </p>

<p>As for googling studio photos and complaining about the sameness of todays photos, stock studio portraits have looked the same for a long time, they are just easier to take these days. There are a lot more people taking a lot more photos now than 45 years ago. You can find whatever style you want if you go looking for it. A lot of brilliant people taking amazing images are going to get lost in the crowd. Google different styles and you will find a wealth of great (and awful) contemporary images. <br>

<br>

As for people who respond to questions with "He's famous, so they are good" and "You are just too stupid to get it" need to learn a bit about how to defend their positions. Neither response does much to convince people of anything. </p>

<p>Keep in mind that the thread is if the artist is Banal or not Banal. I am pointing out that absent the reputation of the photographer a large number of these photos would most likely get Banal ratings on PNet if they were posted today. Is this in doubt? You can say that they have special qualities, but would you expect them to rise to the top of the ratings here? </p>

<p>Also, there are few more meaningless statements than that people should like something because it is famous. Sometimes the emperor has no clothes. Appeals to fame carry little weight in my opinion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The only thing you recognize is the reputation. There's plenty present that you may not see or may not appreciate. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or that in many cases people are trying very hard to see things that aren't there. This reminds me of discussions about Andy Warhol. The art and the reputation get mixed into a difficult to separate mess. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>A non-famous person didn't take them, didn't think to take them, and didn't put together the body of work. Eggleston did.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And if someone else did I wonder if anyone would care. Have people been taking equally-good hipster style photos and not achieved success? </p>

<blockquote>

<p> Hardly a standard that matters to me. I look at photos, not ratings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is the best response in my opinion. William Eggleston's photos are certainly not designed to be decorative photos with wide appeal. Many appear intentionally non-decorative. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> Chris, that's out of line and completely uncalled for.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If one challenges a famous person on an open forum there will be insults. I don't expect otherwise. I did find the attack on my centered portraits amusing, considering the work of who we are discussing :-) <br>

</p>

<p>So, if someone gets shown in a gallery their photo of shoes under a bed and random plants suddenly becomes high art? With many of his photos the only thing present is the reputation of the person taking them. If a non-famous person took them would anyone pay any attention to them? </p>

<p>I do get the feeling that many of his photos would be lucky to get much more than a 4 to 4.5 if submitted for ratings here.</p>

<p>People collect stamps and bottlecaps, so collecting cameras is hardly odd. Also, for everyone quoting camera specs and whatnot there are at least 1,000 people obsessing about sports statistics. Some audiophiles spend $7K, as much as a professional camera body, for audio <em>cables</em>. </p>

<p>Cameras can be fun toys for hobbiests and tools people use to make a living. he world of photography is very large and has room for many approaches and many ways to enjoy it. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>If I was going to get a Soviet rangefinder now I would recommend a contax mount Kiev 4A. </p>

<p>A FED 5B can either be perfectly functional or nearly useless, depending on the highly variable quality of the viewfinder. I have had two, one of which had a clear viewfinder and the other is very dim and "challenging" to use. The shutter on the FED 5 is quite easy to damage or destroy if you change film speed before cocking the shutter. The Industar 61LD is very nice for the money. I recommend getting an Industar 61LD and a better body, like a Canon RF or one of the many Leica threadmount clones. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, it's scary that they're able to vote. Scarier still that they're able to reproduce.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clear and rational thinking isn't needed for reproduction. Actually, clear and rational thinking often gets in the way of reproduction.</p>

<p>Too many people have full frame fetish syndrome (FFFS) for the 7D to get much love. Other people's FFFS problems don't make the 7D's images any less good. I blame FFFS for the discontinuation of the amazing Sigma 50-150 2.8 and the Tokina 50-135 2.8 lenses. I also blame FFFS for the lack of EF-S L lenses.</p>

<p>Programming the 7D joystick to swap AF points on the fly with no other button pushing is pretty slick. </p>

<p>The 20D is very inferior compared to the 7D. A mediocre viewfinder, a very loud shutter/mirror slam, and lousy menu driven mirror lock up mechanism were not endearing qualities. </p>

<p>The 7D is pretty amazing, but it is up to people to decide if it is $700 better than a 60D. IMHO the viewfinder, AF speed, AF modes, shutter, and the build quality make the 7D worth the money. </p>

<p>The t3i currently has the most bang for the buck. Can the OP live with a pentamirror viewfinder? The AF system is not top of the line, but it is good enough for many things. Nobody picks up a plastic rebel with the lousy viewfinder and loud "Tweet!" it makes after every shot and exclaims "Ah this rebel is an amazing piece of engineering!" but the pictures are very nice. </p>

<p>I don't have a burning need for a 5D MK II, so I can wait. The 5D Mk II may wind up the last 24x36mm sensor Canon camera that can have replacement focusing screens, which makes it interesting to those of us with lots of good manual focus lenses that can go on Canon bodies. </p>

<p>One issue with the 5D Mk III is that IMHO it is not $1300 better than the 5D MK II. If both were available at the same time I would get the 5D MK II and not spend the extra money. I really don't need sports autofocus or weather sealing, and I would prefer interchangable focusing screens to a fixed screen. </p>

<p>In any case I am hoping that the 5D MK II price drops quickly, forcing the used 5D MK II prices down to levels I wouldn't mind spending. </p>

<p>Based on specs the D800 is both better and cheaper. The 5Diii has less pixel-level noise at very high ISOs and 10 more autofocus points, so at least Canon has that. </p>

<p>The market will decide how the prices change and how quickly Canon feels the need to develop something with a higher-resolution sensor. </p>

<p>Rationalizing a bit? </p>

<p>Unless the noise gets out of hand or the image gets smeary, more megapixels are better than fewer. The D800 does not have any such problems. Hard drives are very large and inexpensive and getting bigger every year. More megapixels gets to be a problems with small-sensor point and shoots, but a 24x36mm sensor still has a lot of room for expansion in the MP front. </p>

<p>22 MP is great, and the 5Diii looks like a great camera, but its resolution is significantly behind the D800 at lower ISOs and some people will find that important. </p>

<p>A lens designed specifically for APS-C cameras (called EF-S for Canon) can be smaller than one made for 35mm film. For the 17-40 mm range one can generally do better with an APS-C specific lens. You can get one of several nice APS-C 17-50 f2.8 lenses for less money than a 17-40mm f4 lens for 35mm film. </p>

<p>Canon makes a pretty good 55-250 EF-S lens for $200. The 75-300 is generally not well liked, but I have never had one. The more expensive Canon 70-300 is well-regarded and is built better than the 55-250. The 55-250 is smaller, cheaper, has similar image quality, and costs much less. The 70-300 is so good that Canon made a fancied-up L version. </p>

 

<p>The shoe has finally dropped. If someone game me a 5Diii I would love it, but I would not spend $3500 on one. The 7d is looking better and better all the time. </p>

<p>On the bright side people who recently spent $2400 for a 5Dii aren't kicking themselves, considering the huge price increase. </p>

<p>If people want to use manual focus lenses there are tons of great ones out there for reasonable prices that can mount on Canon cameras with adapters. Magnified live view makes them very useful, if slow. </p>

<p>I would be interested in double-blind print evaluations where people look at photos of the same subject taken with different lenses and cameras and rank the images form best quality to worst. </p>

<p>I really like manual focus lenses and film cameras, BTW. I enjoy them for reasons other than getting the best image quality possible, however. </p>