Spearhead

<p>I think if people are going to point out the "extra reach" of the APS-H sensor, it's worth pointing out the "extra loss" at the wide end. When I switched from my 1DMk3 to a 5D3, my real estate work benefited. It isn't a one way street. And the sports I shot for years - boxing and MMA - actually would have benefited from wider shooting.</p> <p>One thing not mentioned is the better battery you get with the 1D series. If I was still shooting fights, I would have to change batteries during a fight night with the 5D3. It doesn't matter now, I am getting good battery life (1200 shots) on the 5D3, which covers what I shoot now.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I remember reading a year or two back that one of the Japanese companies created a CD burner that saved to discs made of rock or some sort of ceramic.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> The discs are called M-Discs, LG makes burner/players and they aren't that expensive, especially since they work on regular optical discs. The problem is that the media is not cheap, although they now have blu-ray capability.</p>

<p>I charge for shooting. I don't know what "more" means for your market, you have to see what people are willing to pay. That's a bit low for where I live. I occasionally sell prints, but I don't charge a lot for them. I don't even deliver a CD most of the time, just web-sized images (1000px long side) through Dropbox and then get them large files for selections they want to print.</p>

<p>Like many photographers who live in San Francisco, I have tons of photographs of the Golden Gate Bridge. These photos, and the ones that appear in books, postcards, on the web, in advertisements for the city, and tour guides give a complete misrepresentation of what The Bridge (as we call it locally, nobody will confuse The Bridge with that other bridge here) looks like much of the time. This is a photo, one of my favorites, of The Bridge as I have seen it on many days.</p> <center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/ggfog.jpg" alt="" width="645" height="474" /></center>

<blockquote> <p>Prints are dying (or dead) as photography's main moneymaker. </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> This is true, I would add that it has nothing to do with camera phones. There's little printing from phones, but this reflects the value of prints at this point in time. Most people would rather put their photos on a computer where they can find and share them easily, including with people who are not local, than put them in boxes, drawers, or albums that rarely gets opened. So Patrick's next sentence is the one to take as a guide. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Optical discs are not very good. And slow, too small to be practical, and far too expensive. </p> </blockquote> <p><br />Optical discs are fine if you use them correctly. "Not good" is a meaningless statement. I buy them for about $40/TB, which is no more expensive than the best price on hard drives. You can get 9.4GB DVDs and 25GB Blu-Ray discs, which is not "small." They are very useful for incremental backup - I send discs to the other end of the country regularly, far more often than I would send a hard drive. I'm not going to send out a new hard drive every time I have 50GB more images.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I'll mention it again, ask your question in a camera <strong>flash /lighting forum</strong> before buying anything</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> This is considered cross-posting and not acceptable on photo.net. Please don't recommend this again. To the OP - this is sufficient here and plenty of people have given you good answers.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Have a backup plan.<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Adobe doesn't appear to have one. This is twice in six months. Most major sites are considered to have problems when they go down for an hour.</p> <blockquote> <p>I couln't get cell service for a day.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Hard to say what the specifics were, but usually these outages are caused by physical issues that can't be solved with backups.<br> <br> Target fired their CEO for allowing a massive security breach. Adobe did nothing about their management when they allowed credit cards to be stolen and even their own code. Then they have a 24 outage. If I could get the identical product from Adobe and most any other big company, I would never choose Adobe based on what appears to be a lax attitude. </p>

<blockquote> <p>what you don't seem to understand is that there are more reasons for someone to buy a high-megapixel camera, like the D800, besides the printing large factor on which you base your whole argument and exclude all other.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> What are they? Nothing logical.<br> </p> <blockquote> <p>But someone else wants this camera first off because it's a superb camera and most importantly he feels happy and satisfied using it..</p> </blockquote> <p><br /><br />Did you bother to read the original post? It says "upgrade the MP in the quest for better IQ and detail in my creation."<br> <br> That isn't going to happen if he isn't printing large or heavily cropping. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp, it's his words. He gives zero other reasons for wanting a new camera.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Have you noticed that some magazine covers have models who look like they're suffering from lead poisoning? Some people just want to fiddle with software filters because it makes them feel 'professional' and 'creative'.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> That has no connection to why the magazine cover photos look that way. It's not clear how anyone would get an idea like that. The retouch shops do exactly what they are told to do. I realize to an amateur, it may sound funny to say that, but the quote above is not the way it works.</p>

<blockquote> <p>You can run your locally installed CC apps for a long time without ever even being connected to the internet.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Adobe has said monthly. If you happen to be on that border, you have a problem.</p>

<p>It affects people who a) just signed up and trying to purchase, b) have hit the end of their recurring thirty day verification period and need to have CC accessible to use the apps, c) are trying to upgrade, d) are trying to obtain support through CC, e) need to login to access additional apps their subscription covers but they haven't used in the past, and f) are installing or switching to a new computer. Adobe has now released a <a href="http://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/kb/creative-cloud-service-outage.html?scid=social_20140515_24010444">workaround</a> for people who still can't access.<br> <br />While most users aren't affected, this 24 hour outage does show, again, that Adobe is not capable of managing a cloud-based subscription service in a professional manner. It's not worth getting into the arguments about whether subscription services are good or not, but between this type of problem and the security flaws, it's an indication that the culture at Adobe hasn't absorbed the concepts required to run this type of business.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Clarity is an attempt to have something look better than it really is.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> A photo is an entity. It can "look better than it really is" because it is the entity. It can't look better than itself.</p>

<blockquote> <p>If the OP feels that he needs more pixels there's nothing wrong.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> In the absence of a need to print very, very large or crop heavily, what's wrong is a fundamental misunderstanding of resolution. The OP would be better served by learning about resolution rather than assuming marketing hype and web "wisdom" that says more resolution actually does something for any photo. He says he wants more IQ and detail but he's not going to get that unless he does something that actually uses that resolution, i.e., cropping heavily or printing very large.</p> <blockquote> <p>But that doesn't mean that I have to agree every time they have a different approach to a specific matter.</p> </blockquote> <p><br />This isn't about an "approach." It's about the inability to understand what more resolution affects and what it doesn't. For $3200, one can buy a 32 inch IPS monitor that will almost display a 5DMkiii image at full resolution. Almost. Higher resolution will do nothing in terms of displayed pixels, in fact, it's possible that a higher resolution image on that monitor will look worse depending on the downsizing algorithm used. So higher resolution does nothing, at best. With printing, it's different. You can print a huge image, and maybe go and look at it from six inches away. In that case, you will be seeing a difference. But I don't know anyone who prints a bunch of photos at sizes where this is an issue.<br /> <br /> Choosing not to agree means choosing not to understand in this case.</p>

<blockquote> <p> I can't agree with people saying that extra megapixels are only worthy if you print large.</p> </blockquote> <p><br />Rather than quote marketing people, why don't you explain how those extra pixels show anything if you aren't printing large.</p>

<blockquote> <p>How do you get two images in one post?</p> </blockquote> You can't do it using the uploader at the end of message posting. You have to upload the photos somewhere else and then use the image function in the editor. If you have a website, this is easy. If you don't, you can upload them to your photo.net portfolio space. Then get the image URL (not the page URL) and insert it into your post. Then get the second image URL and it into your post. Then post. You can use the <a href="/test-posting-forum/">Test Forum</a> to try it out to make sure you are doing it right.

<center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/pacifica6.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <em>Sunset in Pacifica</em></center>

<blockquote> <p>If I'm ever rightly accused of a crime, I want you and that "trust me" guy on my jury...</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> :-)</p>

<blockquote> <p>IMO the courts will never recognise the need for property releases </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> That's not really relevant when the stock agency requires them.</p>

<blockquote> <p>It's also that you got a camera second to none</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> First of all, this is an opinion. Second, it has nothing to do with the question as stated.<br> </p> <blockquote> <p>that, and only that can motivate you for better results</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> I'm motivated by what I photograph, projects I carry in my head, opportunities to see things and shoot them. So it is not "that and only that." <br> </p> <blockquote> <p>Maybe the OP needs more mpx because of the better resolution.</p> </blockquote> <p><br />"Better resolution" is meaningless in the absence of context. There are really only two possible reasons for needing more resolution - printing larger or heavily cropping. For printing, the 5Diii is fine to larger sizes than almost anyone here will print.<br> </p> <blockquote> <p>Maybe because of the best sensor on a camera today</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Once again, nothing to do with resolution.<br> </p> <blockquote> <p>Someone should go out and start doing a research and figure out his own criteria</p> </blockquote> <p><br />Well that's the point. He gave no criteria. It's a request for something that, in the absence of further information, is useless except to tell other people how many pixels you get.<br> </p> <blockquote> <p> it's a superb camera no matter how large you print</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Additional resolution as a pursuit is useless except for larger printing or heavy cropping.</p> <blockquote> <p>many Canon shooters are eagerly awaiting for a high-megapixel camera from Canon.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> <br />I've never heard any real photographer say this. I work with lots of other pros. It has never come up. Ever. On the web, sure, but those probably aren't photographers.<br> </p> <blockquote> <p> if someone has the financial facility to upgrade then why not?</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> This wasn't what the question was about. If it comes down to having the money and upgrading just for fun, then why bother asking about resolution?</p>

<p>Like other people, I have found this lens to be problematic at best, and completely defective at worst. Mine seems to age people, adding wrinkles. Look at this photo I took of Seth Rogen with it and see what it did to him:</p> <center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/larryking2.jpg" alt="" width="467" height="700" /></center>

<p>"Trust me" isn't a very convincing defense. </p>

<p>I know plenty of excellent photographers who use auto ISO. I know they are excellent photographers because they have photos to show. Hard to take the advice of someone who doesn't seem to take photos.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I didn't see anything in your original question that suggests you want to know if the images are good or liked.</p> </blockquote> Pretty much what I was saying too.

<p>BTW, for some incredible photos from Brazil, check out <a href="https://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&ERID=2K1HRG77AM1Q">Miguel Rio Branco.</a> Unfortunately, his web site is a pain, but the one in the link isn't bad.</p>