General Photography Chat

[Okayyou]

^ Thanks, I edited my post. I don't follow the Nikon rumors too often.

^^ I've never messed with high end Nikon gear so I can't speak much about comparing it to Canon's. The 5D mk II has an out of date autofocus system that makes it frustrating to use. I've really only played around with a D90 which I found to be a pretty nice camera but it too is old.

The guy that led the safari I was on was packing two 1Ds and a slew of lenses including an 800mm. He used to be a Nikon guy but switched when he found out it was owned by Mitsubishi. He objected to Mitsubishi's environmental policy, something about them doing bad things to whales. Once you make an investment in glass I think it takes a pretty large effort to switch brands.

[photoLith]

^
Yeah, once you buy the myriad of lenses, you pretty much can never switch. Ive never felt a need to switch though but know relatively little about Canon as I really only keep up with Nikon stuff. Glass wise, they are pretty much on the same level. Nikons cameras I have found are much easier to navigate with through the menus and they are more aesthetically pleasing imo.

People say that Canon, at least their higher end stuff is more for professionals, but lets take this picture for example.


http://www.sfnblog.com/ownership_and...odies_sign.php

There are 9 using Canon, and 14 that I can see using Nikon equipment. I think overall more people have chosen Nikon over Canon, I dont know why others chose Nikon over Canon in the pro world but my guess is also aesthetics.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Originally Posted by Okayyou

The 5D mk II has an out of date autofocus system that makes it frustrating to use.

I've had a 5DII for about two years, and I've never had any issues with the AF system.

[Okayyou]

I only used the 5d mk ii briefly, but when I would try and and grab quick shots on the street I felt the camera had more difficulties than my 7D. I could have been having a bad day but I felt I had a harder time with it.

[ue]

Originally Posted by photoLith

^
Yeah, once you buy the myriad of lenses, you pretty much can never switch. Ive never felt a need to switch though but know relatively little about Canon as I really only keep up with Nikon stuff. Glass wise, they are pretty much on the same level. Nikons cameras I have found are much easier to navigate with through the menus and they are more aesthetically pleasing imo.

People say that Canon, at least their higher end stuff is more for professionals, but lets take this picture for example.


http://www.sfnblog.com/ownership_and...odies_sign.php

There are 9 using Canon, and 14 that I can see using Nikon equipment. I think overall more people have chosen Nikon over Canon, I dont know why others chose Nikon over Canon in the pro world but my guess is also aesthetics.

Hello cherry picking! That's just one scenario and while it varies by region, field, and even people around you (if you get to play with a friend's Pentax and get the urge for a DSLR, you're more likely to go with Pentax because you have more knowledge of it), generally it seems Canon is used slightly more than Nikon. But it is very close.

[Robert Pence]

On-screen it's hard to judge image quality because screen resolution and color gamut generally are inferior to the resolution and color gamut of a good photo printer. When you start making large prints, the differences may start to show up, but among all the popular DSLR brands, in the hands of a technically competent user, I doubt if you'd find much difference.

For the general public, the technical aspects are less important than the overall first-glance eye appeal of a picture. Years ago at lunchtime at work I presented a slide show from a recent vacation. I had taken along a Nikon FM (full manual 35mm SLR, circa 1979) and a bagful of Nikon glass. One day I got tired of toting all that gear, borrowed a Kodak Pocket Instamatic from the friend with whom I was staying, and picked up a couple of 126 cartridges from a store down the street. It was a perfect blue-sky day with some wispy white clouds, and I went to an area with color that I could shoot against the gorgeous sky.

Guess which photos got the most "ooohh" and "aaahh" responses, and prompted a couple of people to ask what kind of camera I used.

In 1979 I retired my 17-year-old Zeiss Ikon Contaflex, an early 35mm SLR with leaf shutter between the lens elements and limited lens interchangeability. I checked out Nikon, Canon, Minolta, and Pentax in the camera shop, and the camera that suited me best for feel, placement of controls, and smoothest mechanical action on the film-advance was the Nikon FM. Eventually I picked up another FM and a Nikkormat, both used, but that original FM was my mainstay until I bought a D70 in 2004. Now I have an investment in glass and a D700, but mostly I'm a 33-year Nikon user out of habit.

[bulliver]

I agree with ue. Anecdotally it seems to me that Canon has a slight edge in 'deployment'. At least in the circles I run in...

[Doady]

I'm glad I held out on investing into any system (other than a Four-Thirds flash), because the Fujifilm X-Pro-1 looks really interesting. Finally, after such a long wait, the ideal camera for street shooting!

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilmxpro1/

Okay, it's not perfect, since there is no articulating LCD screen. But I like the rangefinder style, the hybrid electronic/optical viewfinder, an additional fully electronic VF, the plethora of analog dials, and the focus on fast, compact prime lenses. This is the sort of digital camera I've been waiting for almost a decade. It's a lot cheaper than Leica M8 as well ($1700).

[diskojoe]

ive read good things about the xpro 1. Id like to be able to play with one and check it out for myself.

[flar]

It's -20 and there's a foot of snow, so I stayed in and finally had a chance to try focus stacking.

My first attempt is not perfect, but I see how it works now and should be able to improve it. One of the originals (to show the original depth of field) and the stacked image below:

[photoLith]

I just put money down on the hopefully soon to be released D800 full frame camera that will replace Nikons 2008 D700. I had money down on the D400, the replacement for the D300S, but that could be half a year or more until they come out with that camera and I really want a full frame, always have. Im 12th or so on the waiting list at the Houston Camera Exchange. Nikon is supposed to announce the D800 on Feb 12th or 28th... hopefully. So, it will be about 3 months until I get my hands on that camera most likely.

I have to update half my lenses to FX though as a bunch are DX and therefor, the Nikon full frame cameras when using a DX lens crop the image to half the cameras megapixels. I bought the Nikon 14-24 2.8 today and sold my Tokina 11-16 2.8 DX in preparedness for the D800. Right now on my D200, the 14-24 at 14 really acts like a 21mm lens, so Im not shooting in ultrawide anymore compared to my Tokina, but its fine for the time being. But when I get the D800, this lens kicks ass and is so incredibly wide at 14mm its ridiculous. My Tokina on the D200 at 11 was really a 16 and the Tokina is the widest lens you can buy for a DX camera, other than the Sigma 10-20?mm. The 14-24 is amazing, it weighs a tonne and the front glass element is huge, takes up the entire front of the lens. It weighs probably 3 times as much as my Tokina lens. Ill post some pictures tomorrow I took with it tonight downtown. Its so incredibly sharp and gives great 12 pointed stars on bright lights when at higher f stops.

Heres my gear I have now.


Oh and Flar, that stacking looks pretty good, very sharp.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by diskojoe

ive read good things about the xpro 1. Id like to be able to play with one and check it out for myself.

Me too. It appears to be a hybrid rangefinder with interchangeable lens mount and APS-C sensor. The sensor uses a randomized RGB pattern; no low-pass filter, either. And apparently it has been designed to accept zoom lenses.


dpreview

[ue]

Originally Posted by wrab

Me too. It appears to be a hybrid rangefinder with interchangeable lens mount and APS-C sensor. The sensor uses a randomized RGB pattern; no low-pass filter, either. And apparently it has been designed to accept zoom lenses.


dpreview

Yeah, this camera appears to be really nice. But I'd still like to see more customer impressions and photos on websites such as Flickr before getting my hopes high. This particular model is supposed to be released in Feb or March at 1700 CAD.

[Doady]

You can read about a previous Fujifilm camera, the X100, if you want to know more. The XPro1 borrows many of the same elements, and adds some features, but is not as compact.

Since the sensor doesn't need a filter to eliminate moire, the images will be extremely detailed and sharp. It's 16MP, but it's probably equivalent to 30MP or 40MP for a traditional sensor.

[ue]

Yes, I've seen the other versions in this line. Pretty good, but the images I saw didn't reach the DSLR quality I anticipated. I'm guessing the XPro-1, being a more professional model will be much better, like the difference between a Nikon D80 and Nikon D700.

[ue]

Photography pioneer Kodak files for bankruptcy [protection]

http://news.yahoo.com/kodak-preparin...035350987.html

(Reuters) - Eastman Kodak Co, the photography icon that invented the hand-held camera, has filed for bankruptcy protection and plans to shrink significantly after a prolonged plunge for one of America's best-known companies.

The Chapter 11 filing may give Kodak, which traces its roots to 1880, the ability to find buyers for some of its 1,100 digital patents, a major portion of its value.

Kodak once dominated its industry, and its film was the subject of a popular 1973 song, "Kodachrome," by Paul Simon.

But it failed to embrace more modern technologies quickly enough, such as the digital camera -- ironically, a product it invented. Kodak now employs 17,000 people, down from 63,900 just nine years ago.

"It is a very sad day even though we had anticipated it happening," said Shannon Cross, an analyst at Cross Research who has had a "sell" rating on the company since 2001. "If it emerges, it will be a much smaller entity."

...

Kodak also obtained a $950 million, 18-month credit line from Citigroup so it can keep operating during the bankruptcy process, which it expects to complete in 2013.

--

Sorry I couldn't do a better article. The WSJ one wouldn't let me view the whole article (unless it actually does end mid sentence) and the Bloomberg one was a little incorrect.

[diskojoe]

Originally Posted by wrab

Me too. It appears to be a hybrid rangefinder with interchangeable lens mount and APS-C sensor. The sensor uses a randomized RGB pattern; no low-pass filter, either. And apparently it has been designed to accept zoom lenses.


dpreview

Interchangeable lenses is a big positive from the x100.

[diskojoe]

Originally Posted by ue

Photography pioneer Kodak files for bankruptcy [protection]

http://news.yahoo.com/kodak-preparin...035350987.html











--

Sorry I couldn't do a better article. The WSJ one wouldn't let me view the whole article (unless it actually does end mid sentence) and the Bloomberg one was a little incorrect.

I dont feel bad for them. If you are a camera company that was founded on the innovation of camera systems then you need to continue being so. They forgot what their core competency was and are suffering for it. This is the result of bad business decisions.

[flar]

Crazy. And to think they invented digital cameras. Long history, but mostly associated with film. In Quebec "kodak" is the word for camera (any camera).

[ue]

Originally Posted by diskojoe

I dont feel bad for them. If you are a camera company that was founded on the innovation of camera systems then you need to continue being so. They forgot what their core competency was and are suffering for it. This is the result of bad business decisions.

Neither do I. So strange how different Fuji and Kodak's fates were. Fuji is highly innovative and diversified, while Kodak has tried both those things in the 21st century but failed miserably (doesn't help they, like Minolta diversified too late). And on top of that, Fuji was able to keep what made them popular in the first place (film) much more profitable, especially with a lot more Hollywood films using Fuji over Kodak now (especially for distribution purposes). I do feel sad for the decline of such an iconic and culturally relevant company and the potential loss of some high quality products (which, believe it or not, Kodak does have, it just isn't marketed or financed properly).

I don't think Kodak will go away completely, they seem to be focused on restructuring in order to be a successful, profitable company. Look at AGFA and Ilford (now Ilford Harman Technology), both restructured in completely different ways, but both are still doing well and turning profits (not sure about AGFA on the profits). Or Kodak could pull a Polaroid, with avid fans resurrecting their stuff a la the Impossible Project.

And yeah, the most ironic thing is that they invented their murder weapon.