+

[LupinTheBored]

Originally Posted by djlemma

As for comparing current generation digitals to past generations- not a fair comparison. The state of the photography world is changing. You can toss out there that Ansel Adams was shooting a lot of landscapes at 1 to 3 frames per DAY

I'll bite.

First, you're saying not to compare new digital to old digital- the point is, 'professionals' have made a living on this gear, what we have today is more than enough for the overwhelming majority of people buying these newer DSLRS.

Comparing large format FILM to Small Format Digital is not only fruitless but aPpLes to Or4ng3s.

1-3 frames per day isn't the same thing as frames per second, but then again comparing analog to digital isn't the greatest equivalency ever.

Originally Posted by djlemma

and claim that you shouldn't need speed

He was shooting LANDSCAPES ffs. Dude are you seriously comparing shooting things that rarely move as an argument against higher FPS/shutter speed?

Honestly, shooting landscapes IS one of the few cases besides commercial portraiture that you'd NEVER need a high FPS or (rarely) ISO.

If you need higher than 1.2 FPS to shoot most landscapes... you're doing something wrong.... There are many types of photography that DO require more than 1 fps, as well as active AF or a REALLLLLLY skilled hand at MF.

The last gen of Digital SLRS were used for many of the same things they're used for by professionals today, I'm not comparing two different genres, so that's roughly equal.

Originally Posted by djlemma

or that the fastest film stocks were only ISO 3200

The highest ISO on an iPhone is 800. That has NOTHING to do with a DSLR or any other different format ;P. Notice I was solely talking about DSLRS to other DSLRS, aka apples to apples.

Originally Posted by djlemma

The fact is that there are shots that one can capture now that would have been really tough 5 years ago

(well, technically, I'm sure you mean 6 years ago, as the D3 is the first camera that allowed us to shoot a full 3 stops above 3200 and that was released in 2007, or just under 6 years ago ;P).

Originally Posted by djlemma

and impossible 15 years ago, and hopefully 5 years from now there will be even more possibilities.

Well, idk. if you honestly need more than 204,800 ISO, 10 FPS, medium format-ish quality, our current AF, or even as far back as the multi cam 2000, I can't imagine what you're shooting, but I'd sure like to know haha.

Originally Posted by djlemma

If I could get a camera that would shoot 200fps at ISO 2,000,000, I'd want it.

I'm not quite sure why you'd want that, even when our processors cross into the thousands of gigaflops processing power we'd likely need for such a camera if it shot uncompressed RAW, 2,457,600 is probably as close as you could get, ISO standard wise.

Although that's relatively possible, being only 3 and a half stops above what pros currently have access to. I imagine that will be here within the next 10 years or so. More likely 12.

Originally Posted by djlemma

Anyway, that's my thoughts as a Canon guy in a Nikon thread.

Interesting thoughts for sure Djlemma.

[djlemma]

Originally Posted by LupinTheBored

I'll bite.

First, you're saying not to compare new digital to old digital- the point is, 'professionals' have made a living on this gear, what we have today is more than enough for the overwhelming majority of people buying these newer DSLRS.

Comparing large format FILM to Small Format Digital is not only fruitless but aPpLes to Or4ng3s.

1-3 frames per day isn't the same thing as frames per second, but then again comparing analog to digital isn't the greatest equivalency ever.

Are you saying Ansel Adams wasn't a professional?
I'm not trying to bait anybody, the point is if a cameras come out with new features all the time. If some new feature lets one photographer capture an image that he wouldn't have been able to get without that feature, then it's something useful.

Originally Posted by LupinTheBored

He was shooting LANDSCAPES ffs. Dude are you seriously comparing shooting things that rarely move as an argument against higher FPS/shutter speed?

Honestly, shooting landscapes IS one of the few cases besides commercial portraiture that you'd NEVER need a high FPS or (rarely) ISO.

If you need higher than 1.2 FPS to shoot most landscapes... you're doing something wrong.... There are many types of photography that DO require more than 1 fps, as well as active AF or a REALLLLLLY skilled hand at MF.

You didn't get my point, I don't think. Maybe I should have used Sally Mann as an example instead? The point is professional photographers have been getting great results for decades without having all the advantages of a modern DSLR- that doesn't mean those advantages are worthless. Every incremental upgrade in DSLR performance allows photographers to get good results in less time, and/or in worse conditions, and/or with less skill. And once cameras start to generally adopt a feature, then it'll start getting used a lot more.....

Originally Posted by LupinTheBored

The last gen of Digital SLRS were used for many of the same things they're used for by professionals today, I'm not comparing two different genres, so that's roughly equal.

Yes, but somebody with a previous generation DSLR which lacks the features of a current generation DLSR is at a disadvantage. It may be slight, but there's no doubt that having enhanced features is a positive thing.

Originally Posted by LupinTheBored

The highest ISO on an iPhone is 800. That has NOTHING to do with a DSLR or any other different format ;P. Notice I was solely talking about DSLRS to other DSLRS, aka apples to apples.

I was talking about professional cameras vs. professional cameras. A Horseman view camera is a professional camera, my RB67 is a professional camera, but my 7D that shoots with higher frame rates and ISO's and has autofocus and a ton of other features is classified by Canon as "Semi-Professional." Incremental advancements over time have brought us a long way!

Originally Posted by LupinTheBored

(well, technically, I'm sure you mean 6 years ago, as the D3 is the first camera that allowed us to shoot a full 3 stops above 3200 and that was released in 2007, or just under 6 years ago ;P).

No, I wasn't talking strictly about ISO, or any particular camera. But, sure, if you want to talk about ISO, we can compare your D3's ISO 25,600 to a modern 1DX or D4, which can shoot at ISO 204,800. It doesn't really matter, my point is that Pro-level DSLR models usually seem to have about a 4 year production cycle at the long end, so in 5 years you'll probably see a feature leap SOMEWHERE, be it ISO, resolution, FPS, dynamic range, etc. If you'd prefer to use 4 years, 6 years, or 10 years, it just changes the size of the increments. Just has to be long enough that new high end cameras are getting released.

Originally Posted by LupinTheBored

Well, idk. if you honestly need more than 204,800 ISO, 10 FPS, medium format-ish quality, our current AF, or even as far back as the multi cam 2000, I can't imagine what you're shooting, but I'd sure like to know haha.

None if it is NEED, you know? It's a matter of having capabilities that are nice to have. I don't NEED ISO's above 100 or more than 1 frame every 30 seconds or so. But I can get better results more easily if I have more options.

Originally Posted by LupinTheBored

I'm not quite sure why you'd want that, even when our processors cross into the thousands of gigaflops processing power we'd likely need for such a camera if it shot uncompressed RAW, 2,457,600 is probably as close as you could get, ISO standard wise.

Although that's relatively possible, being only 3 and a half stops above what pros currently have access to. I imagine that will be here within the next 10 years or so. More likely 12.

What if I wanted to do some 1:1 macro photography at night with small apertures but no flash? No current way to do it, but if I had my ISO 2 million sensor, it just might work.

What if I wanted 35MP images of a light bulb bursting but didn't have a fancy trigger time delay system? My magical 200 FPS could do a decent job. Probably would need that really high ISO too....

Point is, give me a feature, I'll find a way to play with it!

Originally Posted by LupinTheBored

Interesting thoughts for sure Djlemma.

Why thank you. And remember, I'm not trying to prove you wrong or something, just chatting.

Also, is there an easier way to respond to bits and pieces of a message without having to manually type a bunch of QUOTE and /QUOTE tags? I'm rusty on bbcode...

[SolarTempest]

Originally Posted by djlemma

Yes, but somebody with a previous generation DSLR which lacks the features of a current generation DLSR is at a disadvantage. It may be slight, but there's no doubt that having enhanced features is a positive thing.

I waited 6 years before upgrading my DSLR. Will have to say that I had to work a lot harder to get shots from other photographers using the latest gear.

Pro shooters use all sorts of crappy camera gear. Most pros I know are not shooting the latest/best gear. A lot aren't even really pushing their gear to its limits.

I can willingly admit that I do not use a lot of "key" features of my camera. Like megapixels or advanced AF tracking (very rarely). Maybe it's a reason a lot of gearheads buy the camera (or elitists?) but I got it for all the other features it comes with. *shrugs*

[djlemma]

Originally Posted by SolarTempest

I waited 6 years before upgrading my DSLR. Will have to say that I had to work a lot harder to get shots from other photographers using the latest gear.

Pro shooters use all sorts of crappy camera gear. Most pros I know are not shooting the latest/best gear. A lot aren't even really pushing their gear to its limits.

I can willingly admit that I do not use a lot of "key" features of my camera. Like megapixels or advanced AF tracking (very rarely). Maybe it's a reason a lot of gearheads buy the camera (or elitists?) but I got it for all the other features it comes with. *shrugs*

I went 7 years with the original Digital Rebel before I got my 7D. Now I have a camera that does more than what I'm skilled enough to take advantage of, which is kind of nice. But, I also like to shoot with old film cameras, because I like the process. I'm also a gearhead, and film gear is cheaper.

[Access]

Originally Posted by djlemma

I went 7 years with the original Digital Rebel before I got my 7D. Now I have a camera that does more than what I'm skilled enough to take advantage of, which is kind of nice. But, I also like to shoot with old film cameras, because I like the process. I'm also a gearhead, and film gear is cheaper.

Here too, I still have my original 300D (Digital Rebel) and it still works even.
Irl I'm in several photographic clubs (one quite large) and the gearheads seem to be just an online phenomenon. The only time gear comes up in our discussions is in-jokes or off-hand remarks. Nobody takes the talk seriously; sometimes if you have a new lens people will ask to hold it or try it out on their camera but that's the extent of it.

[sukotsuto]

Originally Posted by djlemma

I went 7 years with the original Digital Rebel before I got my 7D. Now I have a camera that does more than what I'm skilled enough to take advantage of, which is kind of nice. But, I also like to shoot with old film cameras, because I like the process. I'm also a gearhead, and film gear is cheaper.

I went around 4 or 5 years from my original DSLR to the next one. Though, from that point on I went a bit overboard because I found having two camera bodies is helpful and sensor technology had a few nice jumps in high ISO performance.

[Surfsama]

Lupin,

Let me put it in the simplest terms:

Do you have an opinion about these Nikon model offerings?
D600
D800/D800E
D4

That's it. Nothing more than your opinion/thoughts on the cameras. Do you have anything to share about the cameras from your perspective?

You can open your own thread if all you want to do is discuss/debate/challenge a person's opinion about gear/specs/or whatever.