Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Did the Nikon D800 change the world?  (Read 10533 times)
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5071


« Reply #40 on: May 12, 2012, 03:44:35 PM »
ReplyReply

In terms of technology/bang for buck, the D800 has changed the expectations of many. Game changer? Yes.

In terms of success as a photographer, ...
... the price of entry to some careers might be substantially less, if a DMF kit is no longer needed, which might enable some careers to get of the ground, or allow some talented but not yet well-financed young photographers to move up to a level of success and income that would not have happened otherwise. A worthwhile local effect rather than a world changer. Any lowering of cost barriers to entry should make a profession more "meritocratic".
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1608



WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 12, 2012, 04:27:59 PM »
ReplyReply

... the price of entry to some careers might be substantially less, if a DMF kit is no longer needed...

...but a DMF has never been needed.

As I've said elsewhere, the vast majority of photographers earning their living in the industry are using <22MP cameras.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 04:31:29 PM by KLaban » Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5071


« Reply #42 on: May 12, 2012, 04:49:12 PM »
ReplyReply

...but a DMF has never been needed.

As I've said elsewhere, the vast majority of photographers earning their living in the industry are using <22MP cameras.
Firstly, I was clearly referring to the parts of professional photography that are still dominated by MF, and surely very few of those DMF users are using <22MP, and most seem to be buying 40-80MP these days.

Are you saying that most of those professional photographers using DMF have no real need for more than what 35mm format has been offering for about seven years, but do it out of habit, or preference for how the gear handles, or such? And arguing that primarily on 22MP resolution being sufficient? Are the higher resolutions only of real interests to wealthy amateurs and spec. snobs?

Isn't there meant to be more to sensor performance than resolution, amd so more to the significamce of the D800(E) than being the first 35mm camera to have more resolution than a 22MP back, even when cropped to 4:3 shape? Dynamic range used to be the "go to" sensor characteristic amongst DMF enthusiasts when arguing the inferiority of 35mm format sensors. One thing the D800 does is undermine that DR argument.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 04:58:59 PM by BJL » Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1608



WWW
« Reply #43 on: May 12, 2012, 04:58:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Firstly, I was clearly referring to the parts of professional photography that are still dominated by MF

Certainly wasn't clear to me.

But whatever, precisely what parts of professional photography are still dominated by MF?
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5071


« Reply #44 on: May 12, 2012, 05:03:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, I thought that my mention of _some_ careers, and my mention of DMF in that sentence, and the fact that we have been discussing the relationship of the D800 to medium format, made it obvious that I was talking about the sort of photographic careers that typically use MF. That and the fact that obviously a lot of professional photography is done with 35mm format, and has been since the film era, so it would be bizarre for me to be suggesting that all types of professional photography are still using MF.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1608



WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 12, 2012, 05:14:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, I thought that my mention of _some_ careers, and my mention of DMF in that sentence, and the fact that we have been discussing the relationship of the D800 to medium format, made it obvious that I was talking about the sort of photographic careers that typically use MF.

Apologies not necessary.

But again, precisely what parts of professional photography are still dominated by MF?
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5071


« Reply #46 on: May 12, 2012, 05:37:48 PM »
ReplyReply

But again, precisely what parts of professional photography are still dominated by MF?
You probably know more than I: are you saying that no significant area of professional photography has a real need for DMF? If so, as of when? Did some previous milestone 35mm DSLR end the need? And what is your comment on all the professional photographers who both use DMF and repeatedly argue its professional necessity over smaller formats? Is it just a (rather costly) preference for how the gear feels in the hand, viewfinder image size and such?
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 08:28:29 PM by BJL » Logged
Peter Le
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 12, 2012, 08:24:15 PM »
ReplyReply

    I think the D800 changed Canons world big time.......actually Nikon in general changed Canons world. It is no longer easy for them to give us their normal trivial update......hopefully just enough  to get us to buy a new body. We will see what the 1DX sensor pans out to be. But I`m sure they will find a way....the 5DIII is a much better camera then it's brother......but when you come to the sensor they are still clinging to not giving us to much. I`m on the fence about changing......it is not a easy move. I have shot Canon all my life and coreer....and I`m not young by any means. If I make the move it will be long term......I don't flip back and forth like some. Many of my colleges are in the same thought pattern at the moment also. If we do change we will take a monitory beating on glass for sure and Nikon does not make some of my favorite glass ether. And when I get pissed about the money I lost or the lens I don't have it won't be at Nikon....it is not their fault Canon is being inept. If Canon would come out of their ridiculous secrecy and let us know what they are planning and when may be it would buy some time....but I don't think there is a fat change at that. If I or any of my colleges change we won't be back......and I think there are a lot more photographers out there in this boat then a lot of you here understand. I don't see how a Company like Canon is taking this gamble..........although I didn't think the banks would take the stupid gambles they did and are still taking ether....Now before I get flamed about it is not all  about MP......I know I know....I am more concerned about DR at low ISOs where I am always at and there are many many photographers out there that are thinking of changing because of low IOS DR then for 36 MPs........Sorry just my rant.....it has bin building for oh about 4 years now..... Grin
Logged
luxborealis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 670



WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 12, 2012, 08:36:12 PM »
ReplyReply

As I've said elsewhere, the vast majority of photographers earning their living in the industry are using <22MP cameras.

+1 - Excellent point! Touché!
Logged

Terry McDonald
Revealing the art inherent in nature
- visit luxBorealis.com.
Have a read of my PhotoBlog and subscribe!
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1608



WWW
« Reply #49 on: May 12, 2012, 08:38:02 PM »
ReplyReply

You probably know more than I: are you saying that no sognificant area of professional photography has a real need for DMF?

Yes. MFD is invariably a choice, not a need.
 
And what is your comment on all the professional photographers who both use DMF and repeatedly argue its professional necessity over smaller formats?

I'm not here to speak for other photographers and could care less about why they make the decisions they do. Suffice to say you'll not hear arguments of professional necessity over smaller formats from me.
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1608



WWW
« Reply #50 on: May 12, 2012, 08:40:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the D800 changed Canons world big time.......

In terms of technology/bang for buck, the D800 has changed the expectations of many. Game changer? Yes.

Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5071


« Reply #51 on: May 12, 2012, 08:50:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes. MFD is invariably a choice, not a need.
OK, you are in a better position to judge than me. I will just have to keep wondering why a significant number of professional photographers continue choose to use far bulkier, more expensive DMF gear that requires more lighting support and has far worse low light performance limitations, if not for professionally benefits such as image quality advantages. Or perhaps you are using "need" in a very strict sense like "would die otherwise".
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #52 on: May 13, 2012, 01:49:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I will just have to keep wondering why a significant number of professional photographers continue choose to use far bulkier, more expensive DMF gear that requires more lighting support and has far worse low light performance limitations, if not for professionally benefits such as image quality advantages.

What data are you relying on when you write "significant number"?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1608



WWW
« Reply #53 on: May 13, 2012, 03:10:58 AM »
ReplyReply

OK, you are in a better position to judge than me. I will just have to keep wondering why a significant number of professional photographers continue choose to use far bulkier, more expensive DMF gear...

Perhaps you'd have a clue if you used the equipment rather than endlessly talking about it?

Or perhaps you are using "need" in a very strict sense like "would die otherwise".


No, not at all.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 03:12:38 AM by KLaban » Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5071


« Reply #54 on: May 13, 2012, 09:03:13 AM »
ReplyReply

To KLaban:
    My main questions and comments are simply about the extent that professionals do or do not in fact use DMF equipment rather than using a smaller format like 36x24mm. So my apologies for following the red herring about "need", which is neither particularly relevant to my point nor within my expertise. So let me focus my curiosity on the patterns of equipment choices that are actually, currently being made in various areas of professional photography.

To KLaban and Bernard:
Although my impression is that there is still a significant amount of professional usage of DMF cameras (i.e., the DMF market is not so dominated by wealthy amateurs), that is mostly anecdotal, not based on hard data. My "equipment egalitarianism and progressivism" certainly makes me hope that the actual need for such bulky and expensive gear has been reduced to a very low level by recent technological progress. I am comforted for example that a chunk of professional work can be (and occasionally is) done even with teeny tiny 4/3” format, even though that removes any gear-based excuse for my less than professional quality results.

But as one datum on actual current levels of professional DMF usage: one of the forum members who deals with DMF equipment recently indicated that rentals are a very large proportion of their DMF business, and since I doubt that many amateurs rent DMF gear, that suggests to me that there is still "significant" professional usage of DMF.

Maybe insiders like Doug or Steve or Yaya or Thierry or Stefan could add some facts here!
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 09:09:07 AM by BJL » Logged
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 496



WWW
« Reply #55 on: May 13, 2012, 10:54:45 AM »
ReplyReply

But again, precisely what parts of professional photography are still dominated by MF?

Fashion and celebrity portraiture.  'nuff said.
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1608



WWW
« Reply #56 on: May 13, 2012, 11:51:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I am comforted for example that a chunk of professional work can be (and occasionally is) done even with teeny tiny 4/3” format, even though that removes any gear-based excuse for my less than professional quality results.

Perhaps you should consider channelling the time you spend here obsessing about cameras into making images?
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 11:55:54 AM by KLaban » Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5071


« Reply #57 on: May 13, 2012, 12:14:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps you should consider channelling the time you spend here obsessing about cameras into making images?
Perhaps you could spend some of the time you spend responding here by channelling your expertise and experience with MF and professional photography into answers to honest questions about what is actually going on in professional photography? (Or better yet, simply ignore forum posts and questions that do not interest you!) I do not see why it would bother you that I am curious about trends amongst professional photographers and their equipment choices. What happens there can effect the direction of equipment options and choices for the rest of us enthusiast amateurs in a few years' time.

By the way, I have no reason to disagree with your apparent assessment that higher resolutions (>22MP) are little needed for most professional photography. But strangely, some categories of amateurs seem to desire far higher resolution than a lot of professional photography. (How much of that desire is rational or a real "need" is a separate question.)
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 12:30:48 PM by BJL » Logged
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 458


« Reply #58 on: May 13, 2012, 12:21:42 PM »
ReplyReply

What data are you relying on when you write "significant number"?

Cheers,
Bernard


I work for a magazine publishing company with 18 in-house photographers doing both photojournalism and studio photography. After 1Ds and 5DII (and later D3x) came out nobody has used MF cameras and backs anymore. Now we are moving to D800 for those who want them. Not much industrial or architecture, but I still think this shows the trend. After all, even the first EOS-1D in 2002 with 4.7 Mpix images looked better than most 35mm Provia, even full spread...
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1608



WWW
« Reply #59 on: May 13, 2012, 01:22:45 PM »
ReplyReply

What happens there can effect the direction of equipment options and choices for the rest of us enthusiast amateurs in a few years' time.

Are you quite sure? Are you sure you haven't got that arse about face?
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad