How many DSLR users here?

[haf]

I think haf is swinging between the II and III at the moment. But how much longer do we have to wait??!

The 5D would always be my main camera. It's just a question of which version I should get now. I've mentioned before - it is a decent size camera which produces good quality images. But I can't take pics in low light with the mk1 at F11 unless I use a tripod. Noise appears at ISO800. That's why the MkII would be useful in such instances.

I suppose I don't mind waiting. I can always put the money in lenses. The thing that caught my eye is that you say you get noise at ISO800. I'm shocked by that statement. I shoot a lot at ISO1600 with no issues. I *rarely* use a flash when I'm out at night shooting people. Although I'm shooting at the 1.0-2.0 range a lot of the time at night, it's still not a concern, ever.

If it's a very, very, dark spot, then of course, noise will be apparent, but even then I can get around with pushing the exposure all the way up afterwards and dropping the saturation for a nice grainy look in Camera RAW.

I wonder if you get more noise if you shoot JPEG? I never shoot JPEG so I can't answer that one.

The other question I suppose is what lenses are you using at night? Do you need to keep your depth of field large and use larger f ranges (say 8-16)? Or can you go much lower?

Here is an example of about as much noise as I can handle without editing the photo. This is shot with the 24 f1.4L at 1/15sec handheld. ISO 1600 - no exposure compensation. It was very, very dark outside.



N_Architect - loving the quality of the lenses! Really do enjoy what they allow you to do!

[N_Architect]

But I've also been told that the MkII has the same AF system as the MkI, which is a handicap when it comes to fast moving subjects. So the MkIII would have the perfect ISO/AF system, right?

First part is correct. Second part not necessarily.
The 5D serves a different purpose than the 1Ds and hence will not likely ever get the 1D/1Ds speed.

I don't know which 1D to get yet. If I get the 1Ds, I would end up with two FF. Is that good or bad?

Having 2 x FF or 1 x 1.3 crop and 1 x FF body is a matter of personal convenience really, at least with respect to choice and use of lenses. If you manage to have a series of lenses that can cover you for all applications and purposes on the two different sensor bodies, then get the 1D Mk IV.

If, on the other hand, getting involved with a 1.3 crop body can start to confuse you or offer you an overlap in certain focal lengths while not covering you on other certain focal lengths, then you better not make the move and stick to FF. Full frame is full frame in my opinion, there is no substitute.

We still don't know when the 1Ds or 5DmkIII would be announced and released yet.

If I am not mistaken Canon with the 5D and 1D series operates on almost a 3-yr model replacement cycle.

[phaleesy]

I suppose I don't mind waiting. I can always put the money in lenses.

Wisest choice these days.

thing that caught my eye is that you say you get noise at ISO800. I'm shocked by that statement. I shoot a lot at ISO1600 with no issues.

Actually it is common knowledge that noise starts appearing at ISO800 with the mk1. I always thought so from looking at my own pictures and confirmed that when I met a group of wedding photographers who upgraded to the mkII because of better ISO performance.

wonder if you get more noise if you shoot JPEG? I never shoot JPEG so I can't answer that one.

The other question I suppose is what lenses are you using at night? Do you need to keep your depth of field large and use larger f ranges (say 8-16)? Or can you go much lower?

I was shooting RAW.

I was using my usual assortment of lenses: 16-35mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses. So the problem is not lens specific. I had to shoot between F8 to 16. I could not bring it down to 2.8 because I would not be able to take my pictures otherwise. I don't think noise would be a problem if I was shooting at F2.8. Would have to start looking through all my pics to find out!

This is not a good example of noise but it’s the best I could come up with right this moment. I’d have to search for noisy ISO800 pictures to post another day.

Picture looks okay in the normal view in Lightroom. But at 1:1 crop, noise is noticeable in the dark background!

ISO1250 f/13 1/1600




Same observation as the AF system. (I’m sounding like a broken record!). Was pretty satisfied with the 5D classic until I tried both the Nikon D700 and 5D under the same conditions. Noise was noticeable with the 5D but none (if hardly any) with the D700.

I guess it’s unfair I’m comparing old and new technology. There would always be a newer and 'better' camera out there.

Am I being anal going into a 1:1 crop to seek out noise in my pictures?
Pictures always look perfectly fine in the normal view but some become less sharp when I 'magnify' them! What puzzles me is where do we draw the line on this 'magnifying' and 'sharpness' business? Are all good pictures meant to be sharp in the 1:1 magnification?

[phaleesy]

First part is correct. Second part not necessarily.
The 5D serves a different purpose than the 1Ds and hence will not likely ever get the 1D/1Ds speed.

Yes, you are absolutely right. That's why the 1D is so much heavier, uglier and more expensive compared to the 5D!

I've decided (for today) that I'd go with the 1DmkIV. It would be my primary body for animals. The inbuilt 1.3 crop should be pretty useful for this purpose anyway. I'd continue with my current 5D for all my touristy stuff and get the 5DmkIII later when it's released. Can't wait!

Another idea, the Nikon D700 and Nikon D3 can do all these things now! No need to wait!

[haf]

Am I being anal going into a 1:1 crop to seek out noise in my pictures?
Pictures always look perfectly fine in the normal view but some become less sharp when I 'magnify' them! What puzzles me is where do we draw the line on this 'magnifying' and 'sharpness' business? Are all good pictures meant to be sharp in the 1:1 magnification?

I'm probably not the best one to answer this but I'll give it a go based on personal experience - one that includes selling a fair amount of my photographs for money, many of which include ISO1600 shots.

You just have to ask yourself what's the outcome? I find I never look at my pictures at 1:1. I asked myself why and the need for it - for me, and my customers it seems - just isn't there.

I'm sure if you looked at the pic I posted it will be full of noise @ 1:1 - but, I've printed that same photograph out rather large (18") and was very happy with the result when framed.

The line to draw for me doesn't appear to exist. Since I don't work or share my photographs with other pro photographers, I'm not getting that kind of scrutiny that I pleasantly find in enthusiasts like yourself - it's refreshing to be frank!

Here are a couple of examples of photographs that were shot in very low light, all ISO1600, filled with noise, and I had to compensate for it somewhere...I still think they are usable:







We are always our worst critic though. Always looking to improve somewhere. It's good that you maintain that high standard. I've personally found that a combination of fast primes, high ISO, and tweaking in post if needed, along with an audience that typically can't tell what noise is helps prevent me from ever create that line to draw upon!

I'm not sure useful this information is to you. We all shoot with different priorities. I'd argue you have more challenging subjects as you look for things like multiple AF points and faster-moving objects. Still, it's just interesting to see where people's thoughts are on the subject. N_Architect?

[Kyo]

Can anyone advise if Beijing is a good place to shop for something like a Panasonic GF1 or Ricoh GXR? Any particular shops would be good too...

If I have to wait til HKG, I'll be there over the Christmas period also, but hoping to capture some PEK shots if possible beforehand.

[khellek]

Can anyone advise if Beijing is a good place to shop for something like a Panasonic GF1 or Ricoh GXR? Any particular shops would be good too...

If I have to wait til HKG, I'll be there over the Christmas period also, but hoping to capture some PEK shots if possible beforehand.

You should get it either in SIN or HK. But for HK, its usually high price for newly launched cameras.

[jhm]

In a place like HK (and Beijing much more so), I'd be very concerned about going to a shop as obviously a tourist (without a local friend in tow) and getting ripped off.

[jhm]

May I ask how exactly you find the depth of field to be a problem? I'm presuming you mean it's too "deep" as it were, i.e. you can't pick subjects out in focus and blur others? Do you have any example shots ?

Something like this which I took with the GF1 (JL J GMP-KIX):

[jhm]

Had my grubby paws on the GF-1 in a camera shop today and was please with the weight/feel of it. It's very expensive though,...certainly more than the Nikon D-5000 that was also on my wishlist - IIRC it retaled at £630ish with the zoom lens, and an additional £260ish for the pancake lens.

That's too much! I bought my GF1 from a company called Best Cameras:

* £570 with the zoom lens; or
* £670 with the pancake lens,

both including P&P, a 4G Delkin SD card, Hama case and Hama table tripod (plasticy and not good). IMO, the GF1 is best with the pancake lens given a nice compact camera provided you don't mind the fixed focal length.

Having had a look at the EP-2 specs, it seems that they haven't addressed the main problem - the autofocus. The EP-2 just seems to have a different colour (black) and an option for a nice (but large) electronic viewfinder.

[jhm]

But I keep reading that it's a marvel to have and shoot with it, in almost all respects (apart from the financial one, of course).

Have you considered whether it fits what you intend to shoot with it ? For some things, the M9 may be the best choice but not for others. For all round versatility, a good DSLR is still better than the M9.

[nickbot]

Many thanks jhm As tempted as I am, I'm going to have to wait until either/both the camera price/my credit card balance reduce Probably looking more into the second quarter of 2010!

[N_Architect]

Still, it's just interesting to see where people's thoughts are on the subject. N_Architect?

I think it was Ansel Adams who said "There is nothing worse that a sharp picture of a fuzzy idea."

The debate can go on forever, you know, but it is always an interesting discussion.

First of all, I did not know haf has sold some of his images. I was glad to read this, and well done, my friend. You produce some very nice shots and at the same time enjoying this wonderful hobby.

Moving on to what our phaleesy has written, I think she must be a true perfectionist in what she wants to achieve. Very good indeed, as many people never settle for anything than the best, and never cease to push themselves for achieving even more as time goes by. I may have not had the opportunity to make her acquaintance, but I suspect she is equally punctual, diligent and attentive to detail at her work, whatever that may be.

However I believe photography extends beyond pixels, noise at high ISO, passionately magnifying at a reasonable sharpness level, or the 45 or 2055 focus points on the viewfinder of your dSLR, etc. When I first started seriously on this hobby, I was looking at every possible technical detail, at noise at high ISOs, etc. What has all that got to do with a REALLY GOOD photo? After some years of reading on photography, taking pictures and going after every possible f***ing technical development out there, I have come to one single conclusion: your imagination, creativity and the message you pass to the viewer after clicking that shutter matters 99% - all rest matter 1% (if not less.)

Now I try to read more on interpreting a picture, I would love to take a history of art course, and generally spend much less time on tech stuff. This is also why I wouldn't mind replacing my 1D and co. with a rangefinder. I admit, though, that jhm is right saying a modern medium-size dSLR is more versatile than a Leica M9. But even if I was ever left only with a 24-70mm compact, I would still get out and try to exceed myself.


Resolution set in the camera was low (1Mb), ISO was high (and the E-1 is really poor on this), framing is not the best, but the camera was right next to me, and this is what matters.
With kids all you get is a split second, and if you're lucky enough to capture the unexpected expression, it stays with you forever. One of my all-time favorite shots.
March 2005.
Olympus E-1; 1/40, f/4.5, ISO 400.





For a period of 12 months back in 2002 I was visiting a small port near a large pipes factory. Ships were visiting the port for loading of cargo, and I was conducting ship/cargo surveys.
With time I got to know the local agents, factory reps and stevedores, and start making portraits of them.
Pictures may seem nothing special, but are precious to me, simply because of the fact that I became one with those people through work and was left with great memories and feelings upon leaving the place.
Winter 2002/2003.
Canon EOS Elan II E (EOS 50E) and Canon EF28-135 IS USM; Fuji Sensia, data unknown.



Leaving Paros island and heading back to the port of Piraeus, Greece. For once more, summer holidays are over.
Summer 2002.
Canon EOS Elan II E (EOS 50E) and Canon EF28-135 IS USM; Ilford 3200 (yes, that super-grainy thing), data unknown.


And before I leave you, some inspiration:

I must have posted this link long time ago (for sure from what I remember before haf became a member of this forum), but it is worth having a look. It is the famour Greek AP photojournalist Yannis Behrakis, a collection of some of his best shots over the years.

http://www.dpgr.gr/usergalleries/ind...1&lang=english

[phaleesy]

Thanks for your feedback, haf and N_Architect.

Moving on to what our phaleesy has written, I think she must be a true perfectionist in what she wants to achieve. Very good indeed, as many people never settle for anything than the best, and never cease to push themselves for achieving even more as time goes by. I may have not had the opportunity to make her acquaintance, but I suspect she is equally punctual, diligent and attentive to detail at her work, whatever that may be.

A Gemini girl is never punctual!

I thought it is pretty obvious that we should aim for the best only? No inferior substandards for phaleesy! Actually I am known to be a slave driver at work. If a group of people who were chin wagging when they should be working see me approaching, they'd all scurry back to their stations to start work. I'm employed for my skills for 'attention to details' and I do push everyone along, including my bosses.

However I believe photography extends beyond pixels, noise at high ISO, passionately magnifying at a reasonable sharpness level, or the 45 or 2055 focus points on the viewfinder of your dSLR, etc. When I first started seriously on this hobby, I was looking at every possible technical detail, at noise at high ISOs, etc. What has all that got to do with a REALLY GOOD photo? After some years of reading on photography, taking pictures and going after every possible f***ing technical development out there, I have come to one single conclusion: your imagination, creativity and the message you pass to the viewer after clicking that shutter matters 99% - all rest matter 1% (if not less.)

Now I try to read more on interpreting a picture, I would love to take a history of art course, and generally spend much less time on tech stuff. This is also why I wouldn't mind replacing my 1D and co. with a rangefinder. I admit, though, that jhm is right saying a modern medium-size dSLR is more versatile than a Leica M9. But even if I was ever left only with a 24-70mm compact, I would still get out and try to exceed myself.

N_Architect, I agree that creativity plays a large part. But we still need a sound technical foundation to start with in the first place. Maybe it's just my scientist background speaking. I've been trained to be very precise with all measurements.

I've attended some critique sessions. Someone's photo would be projected onto the screen, the instructor would 'magnify' certain areas of the photo, and comments on sharpness, burnt out, etc would always be touched on. So I don't think it's just me who's being overly fussy.

Some landscape photographers even have equations for calculating hyperfocal distance. There are many pros out there who are very precise.

[haf]

Such a fascinating debate! And from where I stand I see different approaches from both of you.

There is definitely an appreciation for the technical merit of photography. I have had 2 photography classes in my life both during University (University of Kansas, USA). However, I started my first job as a newspaper photographer when I was 15 and was developing my own film back then too. The classes where as follows:

One was put on by the School of Sciences (where I studied Biology for my BA) and was very much a technical class on the works of a camera, framing, apertures, lenses, ISO (for film types of course, no digital back then!) and also exposure.

The second was put on by the School of Arts. I was not in the SoA so I had to get special permission from the instructor to allow me to take the course. Pok Chi Lau was his name and he asked me if I had read any books on photography or taken classes. At that time, I didn't take the other class and had never read a book on it either. He handed me a copy of Barbara London's "Photography" and told me to read that (I have the 6th edition from 1997). He then said I could take the course.

I was expecting more technical teachings based on what to read but the course was COMPLETELY different. It had nothing to do with technical specs. We spent hours just studying various photographs that covered challenging ones to emotional to historic. It was really all over the place. The assignments were about giving feeling, capturing light, pushing our limit in what we felt comfortable shooting. I was amazed when I came out of that class.

He later said if I understood the book, I could handle the technical aspects. All he cared about was if I had a real eye for taking pictures.

I explain all this just to share there are varying views even from what people teach and I would summarise it as follows: while the technical aspects are important - especially today with more complex cameras - you have to remember that just 10 years ago, we didn't have all these enhancements to assist in photography. ISO 1600 as a usable format was just unheard of. ISO 800 looked so grainy it rarely had its benefits. Photography - to me - is about emotion, feeling and viewpoint and very little to do with post processing, image quality, and technical viewpoints. This doesn't work for all photographers (particularly those in journalism or sports for example), but I know for a fact it is what sells pictures and more importantly gets people to look at a photograph over and over again. If you're not in it to make any money but want to gain something powerful from viewing photographs, it's more enjoyable to focus less on the technicalities and more on the story or emotion given from picture.

Finally, I've never attended another photography class/critique since. I do however look at a lot of photographs for inspiration. Sites like Flickr and Smugmug are great for that. You can just spend hours going through what others see. I just thought the only way I would get better is practice, practice, practice.

I'm still practicing!

One more picture to share. Shot on a Canon S45 four megapixel point and shoot camera. This is the Presidio, San Francisco. I love the lone cyclist in a very eerie environment!