Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I would love an effectively silent camera!

 

And I love V8s and the sound of high-performance engines (am a petrolhead) but there are limits - I remember being overtaken on French autoroute by a wailing V12 Ferrari; fabulous noise until I realised we could still hear it when it was 2 miles ahead further along the valley. I shudder to think what it was like in the car! Anyway most high performance engine notes these days are artificial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love my 1Ds Mk III,  (except for its weight!).  The view finder is exceptionally bright and clear, compared to my 5D, and I find it copes well with sporting subjects, if used in AI  servo mode combined with High-speed continuous shooting!

Edited by John Gaffen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love my 1Ds Mk III,  (except for its weight!).  The view finder is exceptionally bright and clear, compared to my 5D, and I find it copes well with sporting subjects, if used in AI  servo mode combined with High-speed continuous shooting!

 

Exactly my view of my 1Ds3. The other disappointment (apart from weight) is its high ISO performance, it is significantly worse than my little Fuji. That said Canon recognised they were falling behind and improved it with the 1Dx; I would love one but it is even bigger and heavier so perhaps the next generation of it. I wouldn't be surprised to see a pull back in the growing size of professional dslrs especially with the success of the 5d and similar in the professional market.

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love my 5d with 70-200 but do struggle with a lack of vibrancy from images there compared with my fuji

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Martin P Wilson:

Exactly my view of my 1Ds3. The other disappointment (apart from weight) is its high ISO performance, it is significantly worse than my little Fuji.

 

Martin, Glad that you mentioned this,  i have never been over impressed with the ISO performance of my 1Ds 3 cameras, if i shoot at no more than 500 ISO in good light all is fine,  outside that setting i start seeing noise.  The DX probably is better due to less mp's on a full frame sensor.  I personally prefer the extra mp's, and try to keep the ISO 500 or less.

 

Paul.

Edited by Paul Mayall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Martin P Wilson:

Exactly my view of my 1Ds3. The other disappointment (apart from weight) is its high ISO performance, it is significantly worse than my little Fuji.

 

Martin, Glad that you mentioned this,  i have never been over impressed with the ISO performance of my 1Ds 3 cameras, if i shoot at no more than 500 ISO in good light all is fine,  outside that setting i start seeing noise.  The DX probably is better due to less mp's on a full frame sensor.  I personally prefer the extra mp's, and try to keep the ISO 500 or less.

 

Paul.

 

 

Unfortunately shooting sport I don't get to choose the light! I was at the British Superbikes Shootout last October and the weather was so awful I had to take the 1Ds3 up to ISO1250 and still could only get 1/400 at best. Normally I keep it as low possible but am usually comfortable up to ISO800

 

I believe Canon also took a different technical route with the 1Dx to reduce noise as well as the lower pixel count. Be interesting to see what the forthcoming new 7D achieves - may be a clue to the 1Dx replacement.

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love an effectively silent camera!

 

And I love V8s and the sound of high-performance engines (am a petrolhead) but there are limits - I remember being overtaken on French autoroute by a wailing V12 Ferrari; fabulous noise until I realised we could still hear it when it was 2 miles ahead further along the valley. I shudder to think what it was like in the car! Anyway most high performance engine notes these days are artificial.

Like you Martin, i would a dslr with a quiet or silent shutter , there again two of my cameras are the D700 and the D300s which have very noisy shutters with my D600 not far behind.. so a silent shutter would be great..

 

Also like you I am also a petrol head and always have been and about 10 odd years ago I purchased a new harley ( as I love the sound and feel of a V twin motorcycle ) the first thing I did was strip the engine/ transmision and went for larger displacment, cams, heads, valves and valve gear along with sticking a overdrive gear in the box..Afterwards I used to run the bike on open 2 inch drag pipes and it sounded fantastic..then I rode the bike down to St tropez and back followed by a trip shortly afterwards to Oben in the Scottish highlands...

After two trips with the tuned engine I fitted some tunable exhausts and have had a quieter and more pleasant bike ever since.

 

As you said there are limits..which I found out..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Steve B:

Like you Martin, i would a dslr with a quiet or silent shutter,  I purchased a new harley ( as I love the sound and feel of a V twin motorcycle ).

 

Steve,  after riding such a machine i would think that all DSLR'S would seem like they have silent shutters, A' wot ya say' sorry can't hear ya!  ;).

 

Paul.

Edited by Paul Mayall
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Martin P Wilson:

Unfortunately shooting sport I don't get to choose the light! I was at the British Superbikes Shootout last October and the weather was so awful I had to take the 1Ds3 up to ISO1250 and still could only get 1/400 at best.

 

Yes, remember the good old film days in the sporting arena, the max ISO film i could shoot for my people was 200,  great while the sun was shining, nearly everything was shot  at 1.0 and 2.8,  it was a challenge but when i look back at some of the images they are very good.

 

After being spoilt by todays technic i would find it hard to repeat what i did back in the film days with the SLR.

 

Paul. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Martin P Wilson:

Unfortunately shooting sport I don't get to choose the light! I was at the British Superbikes Shootout last October and the weather was so awful I had to take the 1Ds3 up to ISO1250 and still could only get 1/400 at best.

 

Yes, remember the good old film days in the sporting arena, the max ISO film i could shoot for my people was 200,  great while the sun was shining, nearly everything was shot  at 1.0 and 2.8,  it was a challenge but when i look back at some of the images they are very good.

 

After being spoilt by todays technic i would find it hard to repeat what i did back in the film days with the SLR.

 

Paul. 

 

 

Oh for Tri-X at 640-800asa! MF, manual exposure and manual wind and I still got decent shots but not as money as I do know with auto everything and a well developed technique. Mind you I still don't machine gun things with autowind, invariably the best shot is the first one which I timed manually (except for crash sequences and the like).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Oh for Tri-X at 640-800asa! MF, manual exposure and manual wind

 

Martin, As some here would not know what the heck we are talking about i think we should stop before somebody starts asking how old we are :rolleyes:.

 

Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Oh for Tri-X at 640-800asa! MF, manual exposure and manual wind

 

Martin, As some here would not know what the heck we are talking about i think we should stop before somebody starts asking how old we are :rolleyes:.

 

Paul.

 

 

You're right ;)

 

That said I am only one of MANY greybeards here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That said I am only one of MANY greybeards here!

 

And with what hair hormones i have left i am trying to keep them for the top of my head,  Hence No Beard!

 

Thanks for the great DSLR topic Martin :).

 

Paul.

Edited by Paul Mayall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Oh for Tri-X at 640-800asa! MF, manual exposure and manual wind

 

Martin, As some here would not know what the heck we are talking about i think we should stop before somebody starts asking how old we are :rolleyes:.

 

Paul.

 

 

And there was me thinking what an innovation Ilford XP1 was when it came along….  :o !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

And there was me thinking what an innovation Ilford XP1 was when it came along….  :o !

 

First year of college.

Beard only 15% grey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

And there was me thinking what an innovation Ilford XP1 was when it came along….  :o !

 

First year of college.

Beard only 15% grey.

 

 

Don't worry. Fretting about the sin bin will soon take care of  that. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion about the perception of others in regard to our gear.

Some years ago, when I had a brand new D300' just out, hubby and I took a trip to San Diego in a motor home. We found a RV park at the edge of the Pacific.

Unaware that there was a long-standing property dispute between the city and area (to where we were staying) inhabitants, I innocently steeped out of the park. I was shooting sandpipers at the edge of a backwater in front of the property. My D300 was on a monopod, I had my 80_400 mounted, and an Sb800 in the hot shoe.

 

Two uniformed security guards in a golf cart zipped up and accused me of being a member of the press. Huh? I told them I wasn't, but wondered if I were, why it would be any skin off their nose.

They all but called me a liar. Said with the gear I was shooting with, I had to be press.

I explained I shot stock, then had to explain what stock is.

They weren't convinced until I let them review the images I had just taken. They told me under NO circumstances was I allowed to shoot anything but the birds.

Rattled me, made me mad. Soon as they zipped off, I proceeded to shoot all the property around me. Better watch out for a woman who has been ill treated!

Of course, they probably would not have blinked an eye if I'd been holding a point and shoot.

A few minutes later, the woman gate guard to the RV park ambled over and apologized for the guards' behavior, and filled me in on the back story full of lawsuits and press stories.

Betty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion about the perception of others in regard to our gear.

Some years ago, when I had a brand new D300' just out, hubby and I took a trip to San Diego in a motor home. We found a RV park at the edge of the Pacific.

Unaware that there was a long-standing property dispute between the city and area (to where we were staying) inhabitants, I innocently steeped out of the park. I was shooting sandpipers at the edge of a backwater in front of the property. My D300 was on a monopod, I had my 80_400 mounted, and an Sb800 in the hot shoe.

 

Two uniformed security guards in a golf cart zipped up and accused me of being a member of the press. Huh? I told them I wasn't, but wondered if I were, why it would be any skin off their nose.

They all but called me a liar. Said with the gear I was shooting with, I had to be press.

I explained I shot stock, then had to explain what stock is.

They weren't convinced until I let them review the images I had just taken. They told me under NO circumstances was I allowed to shoot anything but the birds.

Rattled me, made me mad. Soon as they zipped off, I proceeded to shoot all the property around me. Better watch out for a woman who has been ill treated!

Of course, they probably would not have blinked an eye if I'd been holding a point and shoot.

A few minutes later, the woman gate guard to the RV park ambled over and apologized for the guards' behavior, and filled me in on the back story full of lawsuits and press stories.

Betty

 

 

Not quite the same story but I was taking pictures at my local hospital with a Canon 5d Mk II and a parking attendant(!) came up and told me I couldn't take any photos, "not with that camera, if it was a small one for your own use then that would be OK". I had my RX100 in the car so if I had been shooting with that it would have been OK.

 

John.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Now.... Drumroll...here's where the smaller kit comes in. And frankly, my Fuji X-T1 and RX100s (original &MK3) produce better files than a couple of my previous Nikons. D800 excluded, but way better than my D7000.

And Ed, I am sorry for my glowing review of that camera to you way back when. I based it on the love of how the colors looked and some indoor and close up shots.

It was only when I went on that gulf coast shoot with Louise and came home with hundreds of soft images that I found the true story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The D7000? I have one here . . . but I've never used it. Yes, that's strange. I tested it and found it worked differently from the other DSLR Nikons I've owned (and still own). Didn't like the way it functioned. I was shooting with the D700 recently, that's good, and I still like the D90 a lot. I think those cameras produce files plenty big enough for stock, but if I were still shooting assignments I would have gotten a D800. It was shortly after that time when I began to move towards the smaller mirrorless cameras. 

 

Photographers are being mistreated by equipment manufacturers with all this constant updating. The original Nikon F was introduced in early 1959. It cost less than $200 with a 50mm f/2 lens. They didn't move to the F2 until 1973. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would film cameras update so fast? At that point what technology was changing to require updating?

 

What we are buying now are only cameras by function, they are technology, electronics and as the technology moves on, so the cameras are updated also... You only have to look at the differences between the D1, D2, D3 & D4 to realise there are huge steps happening in the technology ...

 

In the '60s you choose a film format, brought a camera for it (or visa versa) and nothing really changed... you changed films as better films came out...

 

 I'm not sure comparing modern updates with the '60's is fair? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have little interest in being fair to corporations. I haven't notice them worrying about being fair to their customers. One man's ripoff is another woman's update.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would film cameras update so fast? At that point what technology was changing to require updating?

 

What we are buying now are only cameras by function, they are technology, electronics and as the technology moves on, so the cameras are updated also... You only have to look at the differences between the D1, D2, D3 & D4 to realise there are huge steps happening in the technology ...

 

In the '60s you choose a film format, brought a camera for it (or visa versa) and nothing really changed... you changed films as better films came out...

 

 I'm not sure comparing modern updates with the '60's is fair? 

 

Yup, when we buy a new camera these days, we're really just buying a new sensor -- with more megapixels, supposedly less noise, etc. -- in a differently shaped/sized box. The camera manufactures depend on us feeling insecure about falling behind in the race to technical nirvana because they have to keep pumping out new "improved" models in order to make a profit. It's not like film days when they could keep selling what were basically the same cameras, with a few minor changes, year after year.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why would film cameras update so fast? At that point what technology was changing to require updating?

 

What we are buying now are only cameras by function, they are technology, electronics and as the technology moves on, so the cameras are updated also... You only have to look at the differences between the D1, D2, D3 & D4 to realise there are huge steps happening in the technology ...

 

In the '60s you choose a film format, brought a camera for it (or visa versa) and nothing really changed... you changed films as better films came out...

 

 I'm not sure comparing modern updates with the '60's is fair? 

 

Yup, when we buy a new camera these days, we're really just buying a new sensor -- with more megapixels, supposedly less noise, etc. -- in a differently shaped/sized box. The camera manufactures depend on us feeling insecure about falling behind in the race to technical nirvana because they have to keep pumping out new "improved" models in order to make a profit. It's not like film days when they could keep selling what were basically the same cameras, with a few minor changes, year after year.

 

I'd like to see an interchangeable sensor/computer hardware camera, guaranteed to remain up to date with the current technology - but as you say companies are aiming to make money so a very unlikely development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree

 

Why would film cameras update so fast? At that point what technology was changing to require updating?

 

What we are buying now are only cameras by function, they are technology, electronics and as the technology moves on, so the cameras are updated also... You only have to look at the differences between the D1, D2, D3 & D4 to realise there are huge steps happening in the technology ...

 

In the '60s you choose a film format, brought a camera for it (or visa versa) and nothing really changed... you changed films as better films came out...

 

 I'm not sure comparing modern updates with the '60's is fair? 

 

The point was that even by the 70s film and even camera technology was pretty mature after 100 or so years of development. Digital is still developing and is probably where film was at the turn of the 19th - 20th century when technology was changing rapidly. Probably not so much fuss back then as photography was for an elite few and experimentation with new processes was part of the fun.

 

As I have suggested elsewhere I believe we are seeing the sailing ship effect with dslrs as mirrorless take over. There is a burst of innovation as the technology heads into obsolesence (and film use becomes a niche hobby, craft or art activity) - think the fast sailing clippers, they were the last blossoming of commercial sailing technology as steam and motor vessels took over. Sailing is now just for leisure and sport.

 

So the new technology will change frequently -  think how noise reduces and ISOrises with each generation. We don't have to buy every time the spec changes - my pro dslr (Canon 1Ds3) is almost 2 full generations old and perfectly usable - only now am I thinking I could really do with better high ISO performance (and get it mostly with my Fuji) before I run into Alamy QC issues. We often talk about how QC expectations have risen over the years as the technology has improved which is an indication that we are using fast developing technology.

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.