Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 17tse compared with 23HR  (Read 36824 times)
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780


WWW
« Reply #80 on: December 20, 2009, 08:02:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I think Tim Griffith should be added to that list of top Archi shooters.
http://www.timgriffith.com/

His stuff is world class too!
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
arashm
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #81 on: December 20, 2009, 08:05:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Well as usual I seem to be going against the grain
The general feel here seems to be that MF is super slow... ironically for very fast paced shoots I always rent a DMF just so I can have fast tethering.
Standing at the computer and waiting for the images to render in C1 from a 1Ds3/5D2 or D3X is nothing but torture for me personally. (USB tethering)
Even better on certain shoots we rent H3D2-31 and use phocus's auto import to spit out 1200 (ish) Pixel high Jpegs of every capture as they come in.
the second the look is done, the client can instantly go into photomechanic and do selects before the next model has even walked on set.
again USB tethering of the DSLRs just don't cut it for me!
am
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #82 on: December 20, 2009, 08:17:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: arashm
Well as usual I seem to be going against the grain
The general feel here seems to be that MF is super slow... ironically for very fast paced shoots I always rent a DMF just so I can have fast tethering...................snip

again USB tethering of the DSLRs just don't cut it for me!
am


Spend 40 minutes learning eos utility and dpp.

If your running osx at least 10.5.8 the usb is fast and if your shooting at the same speed as pro 7's at 1/2 power you'll never hit the camera buffer.

The previews are almost instant and full screen and what you set for color and tone stays with the raws.

You can name the files going in to the computer, let it tether jpegs and RAW to the computer and also at the same time to a card for backup, or just use the card for jpegs and let raws and jpeg go to the computer and without having to walk over to the computer can scroll through the full session on the camera for review.

We recently tethered over 10,000 files this way to a macbook pro and a 24" monitor and only had one crash which was user error.

BC
« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 08:18:05 PM by bcooter » Logged
billthecat
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #83 on: December 20, 2009, 08:22:18 PM »
ReplyReply

From what I read Annie Leibovitz was respectful of the queen. Through editing a news video was made to make it look as though the queen was angry at being asked to remove her headpiece. That news organization had since admitted what they had done.  Actually the queen wasn't angry she just said that she had spent hours getting her hair set for it and couldn't remove it. Then they went and took photos for an hour or more.

Bill

Quote from: eronald
There was a controversial video made, I believe, showing the talent attempt to explain why she wanted to display her favorite head decoration,  not quite making her voice heard, and subsequently removing herself from the august presence of the photographer. It would appear that some US-based photographers would profit from a course on anthropology and tribe symbolism before venturing among the savages - or maybe some advice from kindergarten kids


Edmund
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #84 on: December 20, 2009, 08:22:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jessegoff
Besides, my only comment was about why in the world did she try to get a disarming portrait of the queen of england with a less than perfect photojournalistic canon camera.  It seriously watered it down.

Annie comes from a PJ background.  She likes to move around, she likes to see a shot that is unscripted and take it.  She could mostly do this with the RZ and film, not so much with digital because she is constrained by tether cables, techs, the need for lots of light, reliance on software that may or may not work.  So she shoots with a ds2 when she really wants to get the shot.  Shooting the queen is high pressure, she uses what will work, no questions, no excuses.  Would two extra bits and 4 extra Mega pixels have made such a difference when shooting under strobes, and the file goes straight to the Box and is then printed on a web press?  I think not.  





Logged
arashm
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #85 on: December 20, 2009, 08:37:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bcooter
Spend 40 minutes learning eos utility and dpp.

If your running osx at least 10.5.8 the usb is fast and if your shooting at the same speed as pro 7's at 1/2 power you'll never hit the camera buffer.

The previews are almost instant and full screen and what you set for color and tone stays with the raws.

You can name the files going in to the computer, let it tether jpegs and RAW to the computer and also at the same time to a card for backup, or just use the card for jpegs and let raws and jpeg go to the computer and without having to walk over to the computer can scroll through the full session on the camera for review.

We recently tethered over 10,000 files this way to a macbook pro and a 24" monitor and only had one crash which was user error.

BC


BC
Thank you for the input
I know Eos utility well as we've used it both for tethering and doing Time Laps projects.
But even then specially on the MBP I still find it painfully slow...
I don't find MFDB any slower in studio than DSLR's for what I shoot.
Either way all of this is a bit of a moot point for me as I believe one should use the right tool that works for them and their clients.
anyways
am
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #86 on: December 20, 2009, 08:49:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: arashm
BC

Either way all of this is a bit of a moot point for me as I believe one should use the right tool that works for them and their clients.
anyways
am


I agree

BC
Logged
jessegoff
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #87 on: December 21, 2009, 06:33:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: TMARK
Annie comes from a PJ background.  She likes to move around, she likes to see a shot that is unscripted and take it.  She could mostly do this with the RZ and film, not so much with digital because she is constrained by tether cables, techs, the need for lots of light, reliance on software that may or may not work.  So she shoots with a ds2 when she really wants to get the shot.  Shooting the queen is high pressure, she uses what will work, no questions, no excuses.  Would two extra bits and 4 extra Mega pixels have made such a difference when shooting under strobes, and the file goes straight to the Box and is then printed on a web press?  I think not.

Yes it is true that 35mm is much more conducive to capturing moments.  But I wasn't talking about shooting style, I was talking about image quality and the drop in it is pretty clear to me.  I'm surprised you can't see the difference at tabloid size TMARK.  But it's not about the camera, it's the glass.  People on this forum seem pretty hung up on megapixels and bit depth.   At this point the Nikon and Canon full frame 35mm cameras are adequate in this regard when shot at a low ISO.   But the image still has to go through glass and except for some of the primes most of it is not that great, especially the zooms.  It looked like Leibovitz was using a zoom.  It's also not always necessary to shoot tethered.
Logged

JESSE GOFF PHOTOGRAPHY

358 Brannan Street
San Francisco, CA 94107

415 777 3700 Tel
415 777 3730 Fax

Jesse Goff Photography
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 776



WWW
« Reply #88 on: December 21, 2009, 07:56:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jessegoff
Yes it is true that 35mm is much more conducive to capturing moments.  But I wasn't talking about shooting style, I was talking about image quality and the drop in it is pretty clear to me.  I'm surprised you can't see the difference at tabloid size TMARK.  But it's not about the camera, it's the glass.  People on this forum seem pretty hung up on megapixels and bit depth.   At this point the Nikon and Canon full frame 35mm cameras are adequate in this regard when shot at a low ISO.   But the image still has to go through glass and except for some of the primes most of it is not that great, especially the zooms.  It looked like Leibovitz was using a zoom.  It's also not always necessary to shoot tethered.

You know, I tested all my V system glass on my (then) 1DsMKII prior to selling it to see if it made any sense to keep it.  Sadly for the V glass, it fared no better than the Canon ZOOM's it was tested against, and in some cases was worse.

Of course your mileage and testing may vary.
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #89 on: December 21, 2009, 08:59:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jessegoff
Yes it is true that 35mm is much more conducive to capturing moments.  But I wasn't talking about shooting style, I was talking about image quality and the drop in it is pretty clear to me.  I'm surprised you can't see the difference at tabloid size TMARK.  But it's not about the camera, it's the glass.  People on this forum seem pretty hung up on megapixels and bit depth.   At this point the Nikon and Canon full frame 35mm cameras are adequate in this regard when shot at a low ISO.   But the image still has to go through glass and except for some of the primes most of it is not that great, especially the zooms.  It looked like Leibovitz was using a zoom.  It's also not always necessary to shoot tethered.

I think the loss of quality in Annie's stuff comes down to how its retouched and printed on a web press.

I've only seen the Queen images on a screen at full rez, where it looked nice, and printed in a magazine on a web press, where it looked like everything else printed on a web press:  crappy.

I don't like how Annie's stuff is retouched.  Even when she does shoot with a back, like in VF, the file treatment is not to my liking.

When I had dslr gear my Canon 24-70 was exceptional.  It went back to Canon three times and each time it returned it was a better lens.  The 70-200 was also fantastic.  I mainly shot the 35L, 85L, and 135L.  

I think the advantage MFD has with glass is really in the look.  Nothing looks like the RZ 110, nothing looks like the Blad. 110 F2.  The 80mm lenses for Mamiya and Contax look different than anything else.
Logged
jessegoff
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #90 on: December 22, 2009, 12:20:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: TMARK
I think the loss of quality in Annie's stuff comes down to how its retouched and printed on a web press.

I've only seen the Queen images on a screen at full rez, where it looked nice, and printed in a magazine on a web press, where it looked like everything else printed on a web press:  crappy.

I don't like how Annie's stuff is retouched.  Even when she does shoot with a back, like in VF, the file treatment is not to my liking.

When I had dslr gear my Canon 24-70 was exceptional.  It went back to Canon three times and each time it returned it was a better lens.  The 70-200 was also fantastic.  I mainly shot the 35L, 85L, and 135L.  

I think the advantage MFD has with glass is really in the look.  Nothing looks like the RZ 110, nothing looks like the Blad. 110 F2.  The 80mm lenses for Mamiya and Contax look different than anything else.

You must mean 24-70 is exceptional as a zoom lens.  I think I have 24 lenses in all my outfits and the 24-70 is 2nd to last in quality.  The 16-35 is the worst.  Nope, it's easy to tell on four color offset magazine quality what the image was shot with.
Logged

JESSE GOFF PHOTOGRAPHY

358 Brannan Street
San Francisco, CA 94107

415 777 3700 Tel
415 777 3730 Fax

Jesse Goff Photography
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #91 on: December 22, 2009, 01:07:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jessegoff
You must mean 24-70 is exceptional as a zoom lens.  I think I have 24 lenses in all my outfits and the 24-70 is 2nd to last in quality.  The 16-35 is the worst.  Nope, it's easy to tell on four color offset magazine quality what the image was shot with.

1. Yes, for a zoom. I think it was exceptional for its model. At 24 it was middling, at 35 it perked up and was fantastic.  Yes, the 16-35 is a piece.

2. Nope, it's not easy to tell on four color offset magazine quality what the image was shot with, after post, and depending on the mag.  W?  Interview?  SOMA? Unlikely, if shot under lights.  V? Another?  Numero?  French? Maybe, just maybe because they use good paper and an old union press operator.  

But look, I'm not going to convince you, in fact, I don't want to convince you.  I am convinced of my position, and you with yours, and thats groovy.  You see the difference in web press printed matter, great.  I'm glad you like your back.  I like my back, too, although I don't use it much.  

I guess I have an agenda, and its to counter the message that you are subhuman/inferior/ripping off your clients if you use anything less than a back.  I say this because I get so many questions from assistants about medium format digital, and they look at this forum, at the GETDPI forum, and they stretch to buy a back and they are broke, can't afford to produce their portfolio and are left in a bad spot. They end up buying back the Canon they sold to buy the back, all at a very big loss.  These are people living three to a room in Bushwyck eating Raman and drinking 22s of Bud as a nutritional supplement.  They are buying a pitch, and suffering for it.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 01:09:30 PM by TMARK » Logged
pcunite
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


« Reply #92 on: December 22, 2009, 01:53:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: TMARK
I guess I have an agenda, and its to counter the message that you are subhuman/inferior/ripping off your clients if you use anything less than a back.  I say this because I get so many questions from assistants about medium format digital, and they look at this forum, at the GETDPI forum, and they stretch to buy a back and they are broke, can't afford to produce their portfolio and are left in a bad spot. They end up buying back the Canon they sold to buy the back, all at a very big loss.  These are people living three to a room in Bushwyck eating Raman and drinking 22s of Bud as a nutritional supplement.  They are buying a pitch, and suffering for it.

So true... and I will add that when someone sees your excellent work from the Canon they will rent the MFD for you if *they* need it.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #93 on: December 22, 2009, 02:38:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pcunite
So true... and I will add that when someone sees your excellent work from the Canon they will rent the MFD for you if *they* need it.

Exactly!  The only reason I own a back is because I got nit for a song from a friend who was going out of business.  Its much easier to rent from a tech if you feel you need, or more liukely, THEY feel you need THE BEST CAMERA IN THE WORLD.  Just make sure you bring a Canon too.
Logged
lisa_r
Guest
« Reply #94 on: December 23, 2009, 07:46:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: TMARK
Exactly!  The only reason I own a back is because I got nit for a song from a friend who was going out of business.  Its much easier to rent from a tech if you feel you need, or more liukely, THEY feel you need THE BEST CAMERA IN THE WORLD.  Just make sure you bring a Canon too.

:-)

I am wondering what happened with the D3x in the commercial world. Is it just DOA because it's $7500 and the 5D is $2500? The dudes I know who work at Calumet say they are selling none of those D3xs.
Logged
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 780


WWW
« Reply #95 on: December 23, 2009, 10:42:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Who cares about the Dudes at Calumet.
The D3x is outselling the 1Dsm3 and the price is pretty equal.
There are a lot of Canon guys that are happy with their 5D2 and why not?
It's a pretty cheap camera,however you can't compare it with a D3x.

I had a 5D2 before I got the D3x and I know what I rather shoot with!
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #96 on: December 24, 2009, 12:18:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lisa_r
:-)

I am wondering what happened with the D3x in the commercial world. Is it just DOA because it's $7500 and the 5D is $2500? The dudes I know who work at Calumet say they are selling none of those D3xs.


I spoke earlier this March  to a small dealer that said he had sold 23 d3x'.  I asked how many to professionals and he said 0.

It seems the straw poll concensus was most people that needed higher megapixels had already invested in the 1ds3, and/or some type of medium format back and didn't see the need to start with whole new lenses and workflow.

Then of course the 5d2 came out for 1/2 price, shot video and in a somewhat down economy it just didn't make sense to keep upgrading for small incremental improvements. The 5d2 was the only new camera I bought this year, where previously I would have bought two or three much higher priced cameras.

I know this year for our studios we saw a lot of changes.  The year started slow, picked up, though at first production numbers moved down, volume moved up.

For us it turned out to be a good year and ended with a bang, but with all the back and forth it just didn't seem that moving to any new system made sense or was worth the usual learning curve, or risk.   This was a very risk adverse year.

I know what it allowed me to do was zone in one one camera system like I haven't done since the film days.  The 1ds3, just covered a lot of territory from lifestyle to fashion, to beauty and once I got it down with eos utility and dpp (and Apple upped the speed of their usb drivers) I just kept on going and never looked back.

I felt the 1ds3 was/is as ground breaking a camera as the original 1ds1 and was everything the Mark II should have been.

I did go off track a little bit this year and used the medium format back for two small gigs that were somewhat static and slower paced but did so just because it was kind of fun, not out of any client or file quality demands.

Now had the d3x had video, maybe a few more features like a removable prism, or was a high iso king I might have looked at it in a different way.

Same with medium format.  When I heard Phase was moving to a "new technology" and higher iso etc. I was really hoping for a cmos sensor, which might give live view and even video, but that wasn't the case and though I am sure the new phase backs are good, from the people I know they didn't see that huge of a difference between a p40+ to  p30+, so for the expense it just made sense to invest in our business in a different direction.

I think all of this stuff is kind of leveling out.  Already we're sending out files sizes that are larger than required and honestly I find no clients that demand anything in the way of file or camera preference, unless they have a deal with a digital tech company and even then all have been open to allowing the photographer his/her choice.

In fact this year when it came to investment, we put our money into facilities and in front of the lens.


BC
Logged
asf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 506


WWW
« Reply #97 on: December 24, 2009, 01:06:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rethmeier
Who cares about the Dudes at Calumet.
The D3x is outselling the 1Dsm3 and the price is pretty equal.
There are a lot of Canon guys that are happy with their 5D2 and why not?
It's a pretty cheap camera,however you can't compare it with a D3x.

I had a 5D2 before I got the D3x and I know what I rather shoot with!

It's not just Calumet. I've spoken to 2 other major pro dealers in NYC, they're barely selling D3x's. When I asked why they shrugged and said it was a great camera. They sell every 5dmk2 they can get their hands on. Rental places say the same. They have d3x's but they mostly sit on the shelf. Maybe NYC is just a Canon market.

I know many pros here. Only 1 has a D3x (it's his first "real" digital camera, he was a film guy until this year and always used Nikon). The rest overwhelmingly use 5d2's or 1ds3's (most own MFDB and/or rent when needed).

Had coffee today with a friend/fellow pro here who shoots major advertising stuff. We went over the past year and what we see coming next year. Both of us have Alpa's and MFDB systems and neither seem to get used much anymore as much as we like them. The 5d2's are doing almost everything.

When you see pros come on here and say the Canon just works, it's because that's the reality now. And until there's something to replace it "the Canon" = 5d2 and not the old 5d or 1ds2.
Logged
michele
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 230


« Reply #98 on: December 24, 2009, 07:55:29 AM »
ReplyReply

What makes me smile about the never ending discussion on wich is better between medium format and 35mm is a job a did last week. We had a very simple visual: a young guy into a train looking in the window... We had no time and had no good train for location; we ended up buying a photograph from Fotolia. I shoot the talent in the studio end then, god bless Photoshop  I used a phaseone back for the talent, but because the photo of the train was very small (it was from a nikon D80) i had to decrease the quality of my phase back... and you know what? The result was great, the client was absolutely happy and when we printed it, it was amazing. I don't even know how many megapixels the D80 has...but the job was very important and as many pros know, the most important thing is the look, the appeal, the mood, the capability of bringing into a photograph the visual of the art director and of course the check you get for the job
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4219



« Reply #99 on: December 24, 2009, 09:04:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: asf
It's not just Calumet. I've spoken to 2 other major pro dealers in NYC, they're barely selling D3x's. When I asked why they shrugged and said it was a great camera. They sell every 5dmk2 they can get their hands on. Rental places say the same. They have d3x's but they mostly sit on the shelf. Maybe NYC is just a Canon market.

I know many pros here. Only 1 has a D3x (it's his first "real" digital camera, he was a film guy until this year and always used Nikon). The rest overwhelmingly use 5d2's or 1ds3's (most own MFDB and/or rent when needed).

Had coffee today with a friend/fellow pro here who shoots major advertising stuff. We went over the past year and what we see coming next year. Both of us have Alpa's and MFDB systems and neither seem to get used much anymore as much as we like them. The 5d2's are doing almost everything.

When you see pros come on here and say the Canon just works, it's because that's the reality now. And until there's something to replace it "the Canon" = 5d2 and not the old 5d or 1ds2.

I totally believe you, and yet my friends in the industry confirm that N has been outselling the pro C (D3x against 1DsIII) 2 to 1. The C body has a nasty rep for needing service adjustment; I was warned of this by my pro dealer in Germany. Another interesting datapoint is that the 5DII sale for video use are continuing to go through the roof - as confirmed from the fact that Canon keeps adding features to this model by firmware, which they never did before. Another interesting fact is that the marriage/event guys are going for the crop bodies as much for the added DOF as for the cheaper price point. On a final note, I own both - and I guarantee you that the D3x is the one that gets used. The 5DII is nice - but it's nowhere in the same "drop in bag, shoot and forget, focus spot on, use the Jpeg" class - the 5DII is more "pack carefully,  stop down a bit, check focus, use the Raw, recover the shadows, sharpen with care".  However the 17TSE obviously overrides those differences, and obviously MF shooters are not looking for a fast-focusing Hi-ISO camera, LOL

Edmund
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 09:17:34 AM by eronald » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad