Photography Thailand Forum

[bjorn slis]

Just a little story about a thai "pro" I met on a wedding.
I saw this guy carrying his camera around on a wedding with a tripod attached to his cannon, it didn't look very convenient to me, so I walked up to him to ask him why, and I saw a EF 100-400 attached to his camera, that he was using with the built in flash............ the tripod didn't have a quick release..... asking him why he used this lens he said it was very expensive and good. the camera was set to "auto"  :'(

[gregoire]

Which is why I wrote "to me that doesn't mean much". It's definitely not because a "pro" is doing something that it's the right thing to do--unless you know that pro's work and respect it. I think we're also touching on the fact that we use the word "pro" in photography to mean "high-level" and "someone paid to take pictures" at the same time even though those things do not always occur at the same time. If you're taking Polaroids of people with your pet snake, you're a pro. I know a lawyer who took a half-dozen sherpas to carry his heaps of hasselblads and lenses across Kazakstan but he's never bothered to sell his prints (and as been doing similar trips for year). Hence, he's an amateur. I'd rather sit down and talk shop with the amateur than with the pro in this case!

[Marc Schultz]

You are right Gregoire, I did forget about the Canon 400D, but given the small pixel pitch I don't think I would want it either. Also, I think saying that the Nikon 200D obliterates the Canon 5D is potentially misleading. What is that statement based on exactly?

On the point about digital camera brands being used in Thailand, I used to shoot shoulder to shoulder regularly with more than 40 well experienced Thai photographers back in 2001-2002 when DLSR cameras were still in the 3.25MP range. Back then most of them had not yet made the leap to digital, thinking it was still not there yet and I counted roughly 60% using Nikon film cameras and only about 40% using Canon film cameras, with some Leica and Minolta mixed in between.

They used to tell me they like the build of the F4 and F5 Nikon bodies which they felt were better than the EOS 1 system and, to a certain extent, I agreed. I even saw a couple of them at that time sell their Canon kits and switch to Nikon. But despite the better Nikon body builds, I never switched because I always preferred Canon lenses. It also would have meant I would have had to learn to screw my lenses on backwards 

So if you are seeing them all shooting with Canon now, then I think there has been a definitive brand shift recently in the last few years with the coming of the higher resolution DSLR. To me I don't find it indicitive of anything relevant really, but I thought it was worth noting since you raised the point.

Also Bjorn, that observation you made about the "thai pro", has in my opinion nothing to do with the fact that he was Thai, although your tone suggested it does. I am sure you can find photographers working in every country of the world who don't know enough about the equipment or technology they are employing, and that goes for any trade in fact. That is why you can always find people at all skill levels in any technically based industry.

[bjorn slis]

Noohhhh Mark, that's not what I meant, but I guess this leads back to the same ole discussion and the same ole conclusion:
the photo is made by the photographer, the camera is just a tool. Especially in photography many people often seem to think, "if I spend a lot of money on equipment, my photographs will be good"
Having said that..........I wish I could afford these
"ps. anybody got a little canon sticker to cover up the nikon brand and a can of white paint for the lens ?  :P"

[Marc Schultz]

Sorry if I misinterpreted your previous comment Bjorn, but I agree with your last comment. In fact I have seen some amateur enthusiasts shooting with higher level equipment than some professionals. 

Hey, how about posting an Avatar of yourself?

[mahonyWeb]

Andy, as for your comment about DSLRs not being on par with MF, I agree when it comes to the APS-C sized sensor bodies, but on the FF 1DS Mark II for example I have had agencies tell me that my pixels from the Mark II look sharper than some of the pixels they have seen coming out from MF film drum scans.

Just FYI, Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape did a comparison with the Mark II against MF film about 2 years ago when the camera came out and basically he said the results were very close.

Marc - where I believe digital has now pretty much fully surpassed the 35mm film market in terms of quality, I'm not too sure that the current FF digital's have quite surpassed MF cameras just yet.

I would agree with Michael in that it's very close between the two, but from what I've seen I would still say that MF still has the edge.

Reichmann made quite a telling comment when he said: "I also am eagerly awaiting the next generation Canon 1 series. The reason? The 5D. The 5D's image quality (other than absolute file size) is a noticeable step up from that of the 1Ds MKII. Images are cleaner and have lower noise at all ISOs. Assuming that this new sensor or image processing capability appears in future bodies, a 1 series with a 22MP sensor of this quality should be something. Let's hope that Canon gives us some better lenses as well while they're at it." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/namibia-equipment.shtml

I have noticed that my 17-40L (which is a good sharp copy) isn't quite up to the standard when on my 5D. Possibly the thing holding up 35mm FF digital is now the lenses, and not the chips themselves I think that's another discussion altogether...  

[bjorn slis]

only if you promise not to laugh  

[Marc Schultz]

Don't worry, we don't laugh at one another here on the Forum Bjorn, unless someone is telling a joke :) - Nice shot by the way.

Andy, I don't believe that the FF 1DS MKII has surpassed MF film, but it is so close behind that I have not run a roll through my Hasselblad since owning one, and that even includes a couple of stitched panorama shots I had to do for billboards earlier this year.

The fact that current 35mm lenses don't have enough resolving power to keep up with DSLR camera sensors is already somewhat apparent with the MKII. So yes, there is already an ongoing discussion that new cameras to come out with more resolution will be needing lenses with more lines of resolving power to bring out their full capabilities.

As for me, I don't want anymore resolution. For 90% of my work the amount of resolution I have is already too much and the long-term storage space problems are already clearly visible.

In regards to your point about the 5D producing better image quality than the MKII, is that something that came from Reichmann's site?

[gregoire]

Marc, concerning d200 vs. 5d, I meant ignoring the sensor, sorry for not being clear on that.

So, ignoring the sensor, the d200 has higher fps, built-in flash, wireless flash command, weather-proof sealing, tighter spot meter that can be moved around (not stuck in the center), control on the size of the "average" metering spot, built-in AF assist light, and more. Lots of fair reviewers hailed it as a fantastic camera when it came to ease and speed of use (better menus, more dedicated buttons, etc.) It's also half the price of the 5D!

Then there's the very important question of the sensor. Canon's 5D and 30D/350D sensors are better than the d200 for low noise at high-iso. Perhaps much better in the case of the 5D. But apart from that, the d200's sensor is fine. It has the same dynamic range and the difference between 10MP and 12MP is not that significant.

Still, I don't want a noisy camera. And I think FF has its advantages (for what I like and do). That's why I'm considering the 5D, not the d200.

I'm afraid there's no perfect camera, it's that simple--and certainly not in that price range.

And concerning MF, I don't think it's just a question of resolution. You get less distortion on wide-angle or even 50mm equivalent shots because the lenses have to be longer to get the same coverage. My 20mm equiv is a 35mm. Very wide and virtually no distortion. If you look at Canon's 50mm, even it has barrel distortion. On a 645, a 50mm becomes an 80mm, no distortion at all. Furthermore, if you like shallow depth of field, you need to shoot at lower f/stops in 35mm to get the same DOF as in MF. That means less quality. In short, a 50mm f/1.4 shot on a 35mm camera can be done with a an 80mm f/2.8 in MF. No need telling you which one looks better. So I agree with you guys, there's more of lens problem now in FF digital than a sensor problem.

[mahonyWeb]

In regards to your point about the 5D producing better image quality than the MKII, is that something that came from Reichmann's site?

Yes, see the very bottom of: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/namibia-equipment.shtml. While I would never suggest the 5D to be a 'better' camera than the 1ds mkII, I do believe it doesn't get the plaudits it perhaps deserves. I honestly think it to be quite a special camera, and fits in perfectly for what I need, and Gregoire - if you can stretch to buying  5D I would highly recommend it :)

[gregoire]

Thanks for the tip, Mahony. I'm definitely going to try!

[Marc Schultz]

I read the last line, thanks. I would be really surprised if there is any material difference betwen the two though since they are both employing the same processor and other electronics. The only reason I can think of why he might find images cleaner and lower noise is because the 5D has fewer pixel receptor points jammed into the same sized sensor as the Mark II. In fact, the 5D nearly has the perfect micron pitch for this sized sensor and again might explain this, although everyone's comparative results might not be the same under all lighting and lens situations.

He did note though that the 24-105mm has serious vinetting problems, and he is right, despite the fact that it is an L lens. I was really surprised that even when stopped down to F/8 that it showed some serious apparent vinetting. I am attaching a shot I did at F/8 with the lens, which I had to clean up a bit. You would think that when you pay that much for a top of the line zoom lens you wouldn't have these problems, but not always the case obviously.

[Marc Schultz]

All good comparative functionality points Gregoire between the D200 and 5D and you are right, there is no perfect camera. I guess though someone considering the two of them like yourself needs to make a subjective decision in terms of what one's needs are and what each of the two cameras offer, for price and value as well.

Knowing myself, not wanting to have any regrets later, and assuming my wallet could stand it, I would choose the one that delivers the better quality picture. Afterall, in the end, that is what really matters and the rest is just academics 

[mahonyWeb]

He did note though that the 24-105mm has serious vinetting problems, and he is right, despite the fact that it is an L lens. I was really surprised that even when stopped down to F/8 that it showed some serious apparent vinetting. I am attaching a shot I did at F/8 with the lens, which I had to clean up a bit. You would think that when you pay that much for a top of the line zoom lens you wouldn't have these problems, but not always the case obviously.

Yes, the 24-105L has appeared to have some problems, certainly in the early days, but many people also comment that it is the perfect lens for the 5D. I have always wished that it were a f2.8 rather than an f4, but there you go...

In my mind, with Canon 'L' lenses there appears to be three tears; the 'excellent' lenses (which can rival that of Zeiss, Leica etc), the merely 'good' lenses, and those in-between in varying degrees of quality.

In the top 'excellent' tear I'd place many of Canon's primes: the 35L, the 85L, the 135L, the 300L 2.8 etc. These, I think to be some of the best lenses on the market and comparable to almost any other.

In the lower 'good' tear I'd place; the 24-105L, the 28-300L, the 100-400L etc. These are good lenses, but I sometimes question (certainly in regard to image quality) whether or not they're worthy of the 'L' moniker.

In-between these two tears are lenses such as the 24-70L and the 70-200L 2.8 (which are very close to the top tear), and the 17-40L and 16-35L which hovering around the lower tear.

I'd love to see Canon pull a few more zooms out of the hat which had near on prime lens quality, and I feel with the advent of larger and more high quality chips, this is what the market needs rather than massive megapixels :)