d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > Graphic Design > Photography > Iso Camera Comparison Help
Prev123Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 16,893
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Gold: 8,601.26
Mar 21 2010 06:02pm
She definitely deserved what she got, her sub-par skills ruined the lady's once in a life time memories. $2500 in damage seems suitable IMO.

I personally just started photography not too long ago and i feel like i know alot more then the defendant in the videos. I don't dare to take up someone's offer to photograph their wedding. All i will ever do atm is just post ads on CL to tag along Pro photographers for the learning experience free of charge. As long as i do something photography related.. i'm happy.. be it setting up lighting, holding up reflectors etc. He can use my photos if he likes it. All i ask in return is just the right to keep the photos for my portfolio. :D
Member
Posts: 14,659
Joined: Jan 27 2007
Gold: 78.16
Mar 21 2010 06:11pm
Quote (Solarves @ Mar 22 2010 01:07am)
Chantal:

No disrespect to you or Canon but high ISO is overrated. About 10-% of the photography population actually NEEDS high ISO. These are sports, action shoots, surveillance which often happens at night and other such specialty applications. Not sure why so many marketing men push "high ISO" just as the "megapixel war" is full of shit too ...

Most professionals choose to employ lighting in some form and when they want the light to blend, they just lower their shutter to match the ambient so that it's near indistinguishable. This allows the use of a lower ISO which ALWAYS equates to a better photo than a high ISO no flash picture.
Of course, there are a thousand scenarios. In fact many high end cameras made by Leica and the new Mamiya MF camera only shoots up to somewhere around iso 1000.

An fyi, many cameras, probably most cameras pre-flash to find focus when using the pop-up. So while it's listed as a con here it likely will be in just about any brand one decides on.

I hear more about Canon [lack of] quality control than any other, but mostly in some of their high end cameras. But still. Saying it's Canon is comparable to saying "it's a BMW?" ... yeah they are nice, but they ARE NOT the only option and they are subject to recalls like everyone else. One may be impartial to the BMW but the Lexus may have a better performance record or Lexus may put out a sleeker looking model. One should not choose a camera based on the lettering on the outside of the box but on the specs of the camera and if getting into photography should actually be researching different systems of cameras to gain some understanding, knowledge and a better sense of what they want. When I decided on a camera outfit, I researched ALL the major and almost major brands. I knew that just because Canon had the highest sales, followed by Nikon didn't mean they offered the best or what I wanted. I just knew instinctively, as a business person, that there marketing and positioning in the market was the best and largely responsible for their popularity,(every manufacturer today can make a good camera). They have a higher marketing budget and many camera mags cater to them because the mags survive by their checks received from these big companies.

This article is how I go about purchasing.

http://bitsofdata. blogspot. com/2009/12/7-tips-for-purchasing-camera-equipment.html

Again, no disrespect as I know this forum is first a Canon biased forum and next a Nikon biased forum ... but I wanted to weigh in and hopefully instill an objective look.


Wtf @ all this nonsense.

Canon + Nikon are the best manufactures of 35mm format digital SLR's

Something that is mass produced to that magnitude will always have some sort of random quality issues.

This post was edited by lithfkn on Mar 21 2010 06:27pm
Member
Posts: 21,796
Joined: Sep 26 2005
Gold: 895.69
Mar 21 2010 08:58pm
Quote (Solarves @ Mar 21 2010 09:07am)
Chantal:

No disrespect to you or Canon but high ISO is overrated. About 10-% of the photography population actually NEEDS high ISO. These are sports, action shoots, surveillance which often happens at night and other such specialty applications. Not sure why so many marketing men push "high ISO" just as the "megapixel war" is full of shit too ...

Most professionals choose to employ lighting in some form and when they want the light to blend, they just lower their shutter to match the ambient so that it's near indistinguishable. This allows the use of a lower ISO which ALWAYS equates to a better photo than a high ISO no flash picture.
Of course, there are a thousand scenarios. In fact many high end cameras made by Leica and the new Mamiya MF camera only shoots up to somewhere around iso 1000.

An fyi, many cameras, probably most cameras pre-flash to find focus when using the pop-up. So while it's listed as a con here it likely will be in just about any brand one decides on.

I hear more about Canon [lack of] quality control than any other, but mostly in some of their high end cameras. But still. Saying it's Canon is comparable to saying "it's a BMW?" ... yeah they are nice, but they ARE NOT the only option and they are subject to recalls like everyone else. One may be impartial to the BMW but the Lexus may have a better performance record or Lexus may put out a sleeker looking model. One should not choose a camera based on the lettering on the outside of the box but on the specs of the camera and if getting into photography should actually be researching different systems of cameras to gain some understanding, knowledge and a better sense of what they want. When I decided on a camera outfit, I researched ALL the major and almost major brands. I knew that just because Canon had the highest sales, followed by Nikon didn't mean they offered the best or what I wanted. I just knew instinctively, as a business person, that there marketing and positioning in the market was the best and largely responsible for their popularity,(every manufacturer today can make a good camera). They have a higher marketing budget and many camera mags cater to them because the mags survive by their checks received from these big companies.

This article is how I go about purchasing.

http://bitsofdata. blogspot. com/2009/12/7-tips-for-purchasing-camera-equipment.html

Again, no disrespect as I know this forum is first a Canon biased forum and next a Nikon biased forum ... but I wanted to weigh in and hopefully instill an objective look.


Oh no disrespect taken. I wasn't saying for him to get a camera with high high iso, I just wish that option was open for me so I could try it out, y'know? That's good to know though. The only bad part about the iso on my camera is that it produces noise sometimes, and that's only at iso 1600. The other iso works fine.

I wasn't sure if the pre-flash was just on my camera or all of them out there... that's good to know as well ... I've only had one camera before so no wonder I didn't know that. Wow haha I didn't mean "It's Canon" by that it's better than any other brand, lol, I was kidding!!!!!!!!!!
Member
Posts: 5,173
Joined: May 21 2006
Gold: 3,116.00
Mar 21 2010 09:05pm
Quote (lithfkn @ Mar 21 2010 04:11pm)
Wtf @ all this nonsense.

Canon + Nikon are the best manufactures of 35mm format digital SLR's

Something that is mass produced to that magnitude will always have some sort of random quality issues.


This isn't a flaming thread on brands ... but C+N have their weaknesses just as Sony and Olympus have there own. Isn't price a factor in comparing what's good and what is not? I mean, if I was ultra mega rich like you I'd probably buy a Canon or Nikon full frame and all the best shit they can make ... in fact, fuck it, I'd rather buy a Hassy and screww 35mm format.

Mass produced low end cameras are just that ... you often find better QC in a company that has more to loose for fucking them up because they cannot afford the negative publicity from making a sub-par camera. Canon or Nikon ... well it wouldn't hurt them one way or the other.

It's like Budweiser or Miller? Sorry, I prefer micro-brews.
Member
Posts: 5,173
Joined: May 21 2006
Gold: 3,116.00
Mar 21 2010 09:13pm
Quote (Chantal7 @ Mar 21 2010 06:58pm)
Oh no disrespect taken. I wasn't saying for him to get a camera with high high iso, I just wish that option was open for me so I could try it out, y'know? That's good to know though. The only bad part about the iso on my camera is that it produces noise sometimes, and that's only at iso 1600. The other iso works fine.

I wasn't sure if the pre-flash was just on my camera or all of them out there... that's good to know as well ... I've only had one camera before so no wonder I didn't know that. Wow haha I didn't mean "It's Canon" by that it's better than any other brand, lol, I was kidding!!!!!!!!!!


Btw ... I'm not sure about that camera but properly exposing iso 1600 may look OK. Poorly exposed photos at iso1600 may make them look like crap in shadows and what not. But properly exposed at the same ISO - IN SOME MODERN CAMERAS - will look OK. Something to test camera to camera. =)
Member
Posts: 14,659
Joined: Jan 27 2007
Gold: 78.16
Mar 21 2010 09:15pm
Quote (Solarves @ Mar 22 2010 01:05pm)
This isn't a flaming thread on brands ... but C+N have their weaknesses just as Sony and Olympus have there own. Isn't price a factor in comparing what's good and what is not? I mean, if I was ultra mega rich like you I'd probably buy a Canon or Nikon full frame and all the best shit they can make ... in fact, fuck it, I'd rather buy a Hassy and screww 35mm format.

Mass produced low end cameras are just that ... you often find better QC in a company that has more to loose for fucking them up because they cannot afford the negative publicity from making a sub-par camera. Canon or Nikon ... well it wouldn't hurt them one way or the other.

It's like Budweiser or Miller?  Sorry, I prefer micro-brews.


So I am ultra mega rich because I can afford a ~2-3k full frame camera body? Doubt it. If it means it is going to increase the quality of my work flow than i will afford it.

Of course price is a factor. But when it comes to quality you usually have to pay for it. Like everything in life.

Canon/Nikon are all over Sony/Olympus. Not because they are "bigger" but because they are in fact better.

This post was edited by lithfkn on Mar 21 2010 09:17pm
Member
Posts: 5,173
Joined: May 21 2006
Gold: 3,116.00
Mar 21 2010 09:23pm
Quote (lithfkn @ Mar 21 2010 07:15pm)
So I am ultra mega rich because I can afford a ~2-3k full frame camera body? Doubt it. If it means it is going to increase the quality of my work flow than i will afford it.

Of course price is a factor. But when it comes to quality you usually have to pay for it. Like everything in life.

Canon/Nikon are all over Sony/Olympus. Not because they are "bigger" but because they are in fact better.


Not getting into a piss war. Each have it's strengths and based on price points, some lenses by Carl Zeiss and Olympus blow the fucking socks off of Canon's or Nikons. ...

Again ... whatever thread done for me. Shouldn't generalize that C+N are it and nothing else can compete.... how much verifiable income did you make last year in photography? Not your employer .... you?

I have verifiable income from this field ... but that's not really my point. My point is ... besides being a gearhead... do you know HOW to use what you got and CAN you? And are you in a position to? Fuck the rest ... it's all trivial.

I can take a hammer made by Estwing, and I can take a generic made hammer and I can build a house. Yeah the estwing is better... but I am better because I can pick up ANY of them and get the same product. And I can get paid. That's all that matters ... not 1/264ths of a c*hair difference in this or that or whatever.
Member
Posts: 21,796
Joined: Sep 26 2005
Gold: 895.69
Mar 21 2010 09:23pm
Quote (Solarves @ Mar 21 2010 09:13pm)
Btw ... I'm not sure about that camera but properly exposing iso 1600 may look OK. Poorly exposed photos at iso1600 may make them look like crap in shadows and what not. But properly exposed at the same ISO - IN SOME MODERN CAMERAS - will look OK. Something to test camera to camera. =)


Yeah, that's most likely it, the ones I didn't expose properly showed noise. I haven't used it much though for that reason. It'll just take some practice with that higher ISO for me :D
Member
Posts: 5,173
Joined: May 21 2006
Gold: 3,116.00
Mar 21 2010 09:26pm
I'd be interested in seeing results of you taking a iso 1600 photo, getting the proper exposure and then printing it out.

A crap load of people are completely stuck on pixel peeping ... I won't name names ... but what really matters is the print and 8/10 times you won't get it in the final print. And if you do it usually will look good. Try it out.

Take a well exposed shot of something, shoot it at ISO 100 and ISO 1600 and print them out... you will see a difference but the 1600 won't make you puke. You might even like it. Hell it reminds some of us old timers of the feel of film. We like that =P
Member
Posts: 21,796
Joined: Sep 26 2005
Gold: 895.69
Mar 21 2010 09:31pm
Quote (Solarves @ Mar 21 2010 09:26pm)
I'd be interested in seeing results of you taking a iso 1600 photo, getting the proper exposure and then printing it out.

A crap load of people are completely stuck on pixel peeping ... I won't name names ... but what really matters is the print and 8/10 times you won't get it in the final print. And if you do it usually will look good. Try it out.

Take a well exposed shot of something, shoot it at ISO 100 and ISO 1600 and print them out... you will see a difference but the 1600 won't make you puke. You might even like it. Hell it reminds some of us old timers of the feel of film. We like that =P


Ah... interesting, I'll keep it in mind for when I shoot again. Sounds like a fun test, hehe. What exactly is pixel peeping?? I probably know what it is, but didn't know it had that name :lol:
Go Back To Photography Topic List
Prev123Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll