Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Photographer's Union
69625 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 7/10/08

CaptainE wrote:

Well I like my camera =) and I won't change it.. but I just think Nikon cameras are good=) my sis has a Nikon camera...
its just my point of view =) it may be not true.. Plus, the photographer plays an important role on how the pics comes out...
But I really like my cam and I can't live without it... so I don't really have a specific reason


Nice answer. Don't worry, I wouldn't say, either, that one brand is better over the other ~ but each brand does seem to have their own inherent biases, as far as production and quality are concerned. Nikon tends to be more sensitive on the warm colors, making them good for portraits and other shots with human subjects. Canons, for some reason, reproduce blues and greens very well, making them an excellent choice for landscape photography.

However, further discrepancies come when the peripherals come into play. Nikon tends to be a bit on the pricey side, but quality is almost always assured. Canon, though a bit cheaper, makes users pay for the exceptional glass, while making affordable options (though not necessarily good ones) to their users.

All in all, it's a matter of your needs, and what you see fit. I personally find the "fit" of a camera to be most important. Hold it in your hands and see if you're "comfortable" with it. The last thing you want is a great camera that you can hardly use.


I may be a die-hard Nikonian, but I highly respect other brands, and I'm willing to try them out every now and then. Sadly, I can't really say that Nikon is better over Canon, and vice-versa. It may have to depend on what cameras we're comparing, and for what purposes ~ but for most of the way, I tend to sway Nikon.
3156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 7/10/08
Who wants some 50-megapixel Hasselblad H3DII-50 camera?




The camera features a 36 X 48mm Kodak sensor that generates 300MB files at 1FPS. The good news is that the owners of the H3DII-39 can trade it up for the H3DII-50. The camera will be released in October 2008. Sadly, the pricing info is still unknown.


Taken from http://www.techfresh.net/gadgets/cameras/hasselblad-50-megapixel-h3dii-50/
69625 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 7/10/08

haotehmao wrote:

Who wants some 50-megapixel Hasselblad H3DII-50 camera?


Nice catch, I haven't heard of the 50 MP release of the H3D-II, yet. Of course, this camera is the Nirvana of almost any Photography enthusiast... I for one have no intention of owning one ~ but holding one is a different story.
3156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 7/10/08

edsamac wrote:


haotehmao wrote:

Who wants some 50-megapixel Hasselblad H3DII-50 camera?


Nice catch, I haven't heard of the 50 MP release of the H3D-II, yet. Of course, this camera is the Nirvana of almost any Photography enthusiast... I for one have no intention of owning one ~ but holding one is a different story.


It looks like it could fire torpedoes or something. 50-megapixel is way over the top for me. I'd prolly have to sell my car to get one of these.
31280 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114 / M
Offline
Posted 7/10/08
Edsamac, It seems that your camera collection got bigger ^_^
3929 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / My body lives in...
Offline
Posted 7/10/08
I am using a film and an old digital camera and my friends recommend the following for digital camera:

Action and Sports = D3

Landscapes = 5D

Portraits = D700

Low Light = D700 or D3


69625 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 7/14/08 , edited 7/14/08

chinky_sonny wrote:

I am using a film and an old digital camera and my friends recommend the following for digital camera:

Action and Sports = D3

Landscapes = 5D

Portraits = D700

Low Light = D700 or D3




All those suggestions don't make sense if you don't take into consideration the context of both the photographer and the equipment he/she has at hand. True, the D3 is great for sports, or pretty much everything, actually... but if you don't have the correct training or even decent lenses, you'll be doing no justice to the power that the camera has to offer.

So far from being a variable of simply the camera, the philosophy of knowing that the camera simply aids in the capture of such exposures to the photographer is better ~ but the indispensability of the experience and technical expertise of the photographer cannot be compensated or substituted.

For professionals, the D3 is perhaps THE choice for Action and sports, but the D300 can still perform just as well, especially for those on a budget. If you need an extra boost in the FPS to capture more action, then adding the MB-D10 (Battery Grip) can help boost up the built-in 7fps of the D300 to a nice 8fps. Sure, it's not at par to the 9fps (and 11fps at crop mode) of the D3, but quality-wise, a good photographer can make up for the discrepancies found between the D3 and the D300.

I won't say anything yet about the D700. For one thing, it's odd that your friends are recommending a camera for anything when the camera hasn't even been released in the market, yet. If they're basing their opinions on the raw specs that the camera has to offer, then they're simply either buttering their hopes up, or preparing for a fulfilling experience. Either way, it makes no sense to recommend a camera that isn't even out yet. The D700 won't be out until the end of the month...


Instead of recommending bodies for different situations, it seems to make more sense to recommend lenses for different uses. It's not as if you'd pick one camera over the other based on a given situation. Rarely is the casual photographer a specialist in taking specific subjects, so to have a specific camera for a specific job is simply not an economical option; not just for the casual photographer, but even for the photographer, as well. It'll be simply too cumbersome to have to have one camera for each specific task. Cameras, indeed, perform well in certain areas ~ but that shouldn't be the basis for why you'd recommend or choose one camera over the other. Instead, you should focus on a general survey of features, and which ones you'd most probably use. Again, note the importance of you. The situation of the shot and the media to be taken doesn't determine what camera is best for the job ~ it's the preferences and skills of the photographer that make the big decision.

In the end, it's a matter of the choice of lens, and how it can help your body in different situations. Given that, you should be recommending lenses for different situations (i.e. action/sports, landscape, etc.), instead of recommending bodies.


arvin_bfg9000 wrote:

Edsamac, It seems that your camera collection got bigger ^_^


Funny that you should mention that a day before I purchased my new camera. Thanks.
3929 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / My body lives in...
Offline
Posted 7/14/08 , edited 7/26/08

edsamac wrote:


chinky_sonny wrote:

I am using a film and an old digital camera and my friends recommend the following for digital camera:

Action and Sports = D3

Landscapes = 5D

Portraits = D700

Low Light = D700 or D3




All those suggestions don't make sense if you don't take into consideration the context of both the photographer and the equipment he/she has at hand. True, the D3 is great for sports, or pretty much everything, actually... but if you don't have the correct training or even decent lenses, you'll be doing no justice to the power that the camera has to offer.

So far from being a variable of simply the camera, the philosophy of knowing that the camera simply aids in the capture of such exposures to the photographer is better ~ but the indispensability of the experience and technical expertise of the photographer cannot be compensated or substituted.

For professionals, the D3 is perhaps THE choice for Action and sports, but the D300 can still perform just as well, especially for those on a budget. If you need an extra boost in the FPS to capture more action, then adding the MB-D10 (Battery Grip) can help boost up the built-in 7fps of the D300 to a nice 8fps. Sure, it's not at par to the 9fps (and 11fps at crop mode) of the D3, but quality-wise, a good photographer can make up for the discrepancies found between the D3 and the D300.

I won't say anything yet about the D700. For one thing, it's odd that your friends are recommending a camera for anything when the camera hasn't even been released in the market, yet. If they're basing their opinions on the raw specs that the camera has to offer, then they're simply either buttering their hopes up, or preparing for a fulfilling experience. Either way, it makes no sense to recommend a camera that isn't even out yet. The D700 won't be out until the end of the month...


Instead of recommending bodies for different situations, it seems to make more sense to recommend lenses for different uses. It's not as if you'd pick one camera over the other based on a given situation. Rarely is the casual photographer a specialist in taking specific subjects, so to have a specific camera for a specific job is simply not an economical option; not just for the casual photographer, but even for the photographer, as well. It'll be simply too cumbersome to have to have one camera for each specific task. Cameras, indeed, perform well in certain areas ~ but that shouldn't be the basis for why you'd recommend or choose one camera over the other. Instead, you should focus on a general survey of features, and which ones you'd most probably use. Again, note the importance of you. The situation of the shot and the media to be taken doesn't determine what camera is best for the job ~ it's the preferences and skills of the photographer that make the big decision.

In the end, it's a matter of the choice of lens, and how it can help your body in different situations. Given that, you should be recommending lenses for different situations (i.e. action/sports, landscape, etc.), instead of recommending bodies.


arvin_bfg9000 wrote:

Edsamac, It seems that your camera collection got bigger ^_^


Funny that you should mention that a day before I purchased my new camera. Thanks.


I am a hobbyist and any camera works for me. Yeah, the cameras mentioned above are now in my wish list. I own a fairly good wide tele nikon lens for my film and digital camera. As an add on I have my eye on mamiya 7 and d300.



69625 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 7/14/08

chinky_sonny wrote:

I am a hobbyist and any camera works for me. Yeah, the cameras mentioned above are now in my wish list. I own a fairly good wide tele nikon lens for my film and digital camera. As an add on I have my eye on mamiya 7 and d300.



I wouldn't really recommend the Nikon D3 if you're simply a hobbyist... even if you're an enthusiast, purchasing the D3 might be too much if you won't be making money out of it. And that's simply because the D3 was designed for heavy use and quick response that Professionals need. If you don't need much of the power that this camera has, then you'd be better off with a simpler model, such as the D300 (or even the D700, to a certain extent). Save yourself the money on features/technology that you might not need (and might not be appreciated by other people).
3929 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / My body lives in...
Offline
Posted 7/15/08

edsamac wrote:


chinky_sonny wrote:

I am a hobbyist and any camera works for me. Yeah, the cameras mentioned above are now in my wish list. I own a fairly good wide tele nikon lens for my film and digital camera. As an add on I have my eye on mamiya 7 and d300.



I wouldn't really recommend the Nikon D3 if you're simply a hobbyist... even if you're an enthusiast, purchasing the D3 might be too much if you won't be making money out of it. And that's simply because the D3 was designed for heavy use and quick response that Professionals need. If you don't need much of the power that this camera has, then you'd be better off with a simpler model, such as the D300 (or even the D700, to a certain extent). Save yourself the money on features/technology that you might not need (and might not be appreciated by other people).




i guess i have been a new gear sensitive lately. thanks. please give insights on white Balance, contrast and saturation for portrait and landscape as i am getting better results from my film camera.
69625 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 7/15/08

chinky_sonny wrote:

i guess i have been a new gear sensitive lately. thanks. please give insights on white Balance, contrast and saturation for portrait and landscape as i am getting better results from my film camera.


What about WB, contrast, and saturation? If you don't give me something more specific than that, then there's nothing much I can comment about it. Am I to assume you're asking for my opinion on image quality on film vis-a-vis digital? If that's the case, it's difficult to compare anything, because WB systems, contrast and saturation rendering, and other image quality issues depend on what body you're talking about.

If you're using an entry-level prosumer digital SLR, then it's easy to say that the image quality is inferior to film. However, the flexibility of digital images, and the nearing "film-like" quality of ISO noise in newer models, such as the D300, D700 and D3, make digital a rather convenient choice for photographers, because the shoot-to-print spectrum is shortened with film development taken out of the picture.

These days, shooting in film is more of a enthusiast activity, and usually produces results that are just marginally better than digital prints, today. Depending on the media, the subject, and the context of the shoot, I'd still pick film over digital. However, most of the time, I'm shooting digital, as it's efficient, cost-effective, and flexible in terms of editing, cropping, and distributing.

If we're talking about sheer quality of the image, film is definitely better in most respects, but the differences are just minimal. I, personally, enjoy the unique texture offered by film grain ~ but WB, contrast, and saturation depend on the build of the body and the quality of film you're using, if you're talking about film cameras. For digital, you also have to specify what body you're talking about.


If you want a more direct answer, you'll have to ask about a comparison between specific camera bodies. What is your film camera body, and with which body do you wish to compare it with? You can't simply make your camera the benchmark of film bodies and expect to pit it up with something as vague as "WB, contrast, and saturation" in general.
3929 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / My body lives in...
Offline
Posted 7/16/08 , edited 7/17/08

edsamac wrote:


chinky_sonny wrote:

i guess i have been a new gear sensitive lately. thanks. please give insights on white Balance, contrast and saturation for portrait and landscape as i am getting better results from my film camera.


What about WB, contrast, and saturation? If you don't give me something more specific than that, then there's nothing much I can comment about it. Am I to assume you're asking for my opinion on image quality on film vis-a-vis digital? If that's the case, it's difficult to compare anything, because WB systems, contrast and saturation rendering, and other image quality issues depend on what body you're talking about.

If you're using an entry-level prosumer digital SLR, then it's easy to say that the image quality is inferior to film. However, the flexibility of digital images, and the nearing "film-like" quality of ISO noise in newer models, such as the D300, D700 and D3, make digital a rather convenient choice for photographers, because the shoot-to-print spectrum is shortened with film development taken out of the picture.

These days, shooting in film is more of a enthusiast activity, and usually produces results that are just marginally better than digital prints, today. Depending on the media, the subject, and the context of the shoot, I'd still pick film over digital. However, most of the time, I'm shooting digital, as it's efficient, cost-effective, and flexible in terms of editing, cropping, and distributing.

If we're talking about sheer quality of the image, film is definitely better in most respects, but the differences are just minimal. I, personally, enjoy the unique texture offered by film grain ~ but WB, contrast, and saturation depend on the build of the body and the quality of film you're using, if you're talking about film cameras. For digital, you also have to specify what body you're talking about.


If you want a more direct answer, you'll have to ask about a comparison between specific camera bodies. What is your film camera body, and with which body do you wish to compare it with? You can't simply make your camera the benchmark of film bodies and expect to pit it up with something as vague as "WB, contrast, and saturation" in general.


I am using Nikon FM2 and Nikon D70s camera bodies. for landscape i am looking for colors colors.

12914 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19
Offline
Posted 7/17/08
Well, I discovered my camera loving self when I was suppose to pose as a model then the photographer don't know how and i showed her how and then I started taking pictures with my Sony PSP 1.3 MP camera and Sony Cybershot 5MP cam and I would like to get a new one.
69625 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 7/17/08

chinky_sonny wrote:

I am using Nikon FM2 and Nikon D70s camera bodies. for landscape i am looking for colors colors.



From personal experience, the D70s has a hard time negotiating WB, as the Auto WB tends to give images a greenish-blue tinge. The other WB modes are rather shaky, but it's a good thing that each WB (save the Preset WB mode) can be fine tuned in EV increments.

The FM2 is a pretty solid body, and it really depends on what kind of film you opt to use for your shots. If you want colors for your landscapes, you might want to consider FujiFilm Velvia 100, as it reproduces colors rather vividly (if not in a surreal manner). Other options include the more subtle FujiFilm Provia 100, which renders blues and earth tones very well, and the well rounded Kodak Ektachrome 100, which is an all-around good performer.


3929 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / My body lives in...
Offline
Posted 7/17/08

edsamac wrote:


chinky_sonny wrote:

I am using Nikon FM2 and Nikon D70s camera bodies. for landscape i am looking for colors colors.



From personal experience, the D70s has a hard time negotiating WB, as the Auto WB tends to give images a greenish-blue tinge. The other WB modes are rather shaky, but it's a good thing that each WB (save the Preset WB mode) can be fine tuned in EV increments.

The FM2 is a pretty solid body, and it really depends on what kind of film you opt to use for your shots. If you want colors for your landscapes, you might want to consider FujiFilm Velvia 100, as it reproduces colors rather vividly (if not in a surreal manner). Other options include the more subtle FujiFilm Provia 100, which renders blues and earth tones very well, and the well rounded Kodak Ektachrome 100, which is an all-around good performer.




i have other questions but let me take it one at a time. (i am sure many will learn from the Q&A)
Related to the previously answered question, how about indoor portrait photo using film and digital camera with available light and controlled light (flash or studio light)?

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.