5d @ Iso 3200
- Thread starter CYRN
- Start date
- Status
CYRN
Senior Member
Beerboy said:Me too...
You see, Phil banned me from that forum... my bad, I expressed my opinion that he didn't agree with..
Then, soon after it was learned that I was removed, some guy who calls himself "Beerboy TM" joined, and he is just some goof ball who for some odd reason, pretends to be me.. It just adds to the "zoo" that dpreview has turned into..
JP
OIC.
You've got an impressive portfolio. :thumbsup:
Welcome to CS. We do, on occasions, tend to defend the brand we bought to (mainly it's due to some psychological effect of self justification that we have made the "best-right" choice). But on the whole, we tend to self moderate and seasoned CSers sometimes do hint using "+1" (before thread gets locked).
most arguement on 5D's FF is that the 17-40 doesn't produce sharp corners. I mean.. what's that got to do with the FF sensor or 5D? :dunno: Unless what they meant to say is that the FF caused the 17-40 to have soft corners with light falloff.. :dunno: beats me..
Then someone along the way will start a statement about 1.5X and FF again.. then well..on becoming zoo part? well.. we're pretty much headed that way.
5D did indeed start a revolution and caused quite a stir, together with a tinge panic & jealousy amongst some in other camps. More hands on review on the 5D please! And gentlemen, please remember, we're not discussing lenses here. 5D is not a lens. It's a camera body.
Then someone along the way will start a statement about 1.5X and FF again.. then well..on becoming zoo part? well.. we're pretty much headed that way.
5D did indeed start a revolution and caused quite a stir, together with a tinge panic & jealousy amongst some in other camps. More hands on review on the 5D please! And gentlemen, please remember, we're not discussing lenses here. 5D is not a lens. It's a camera body.
Funny thing is... it's people who come into Nikon camp and talk about their FFs and jeers at Nikon for not having one.
Nobody in Nikon camp thought that it's STUPID/CRAZY to have a FF camera. And yes, once again we have been branded at calling FF stupid without us saying it.
As for Canon vs Nikon wars, we've seen in the latest thread on 5D how unsecure some can get when trying to get back at others for being factual by getting personal... so ... oh well, I better fly south for winter before I get declared fowl play.
*kwaaaak kwaaaak*
Nobody in Nikon camp thought that it's STUPID/CRAZY to have a FF camera. And yes, once again we have been branded at calling FF stupid without us saying it.
As for Canon vs Nikon wars, we've seen in the latest thread on 5D how unsecure some can get when trying to get back at others for being factual by getting personal... so ... oh well, I better fly south for winter before I get declared fowl play.
*kwaaaak kwaaaak*
NorthernLights
Senior Member
espn said:
Fully agreed. It's a tool...for some, it's livelihood, for some, it's the joy of shooting loved ones, for some, memories of what they see and want to tell others about.
It's all in this activity called photography. Incidentally, the hobby is not camera brand, but photography.
So what if Canon has better sensors now. I would say Nikon has a better body now.
NorthernLights
Senior Member
espn said:Shoot more, talk later
Loved one....:bsmilie:
Can I talk now??:bsmilie:
1 week liao still no sound no picture from them.yanyewkay said:
You know what's funny..? If you use a 17-40 L lens on a film body, the same thing will happen too.. LOL.. Digital is however a little different, being that the sensor doesn't have the ability to allow light hit it from every angle like film does.. but, as far as the lens is conserned, if it is soft in the corners of a full frame digital body, it will be that same in a film body too.. which is not a real issue to me.. Think about it,... Before.....( I believe it was 1995)... Canon introduced the 17-35mm f2.8 L lens, which replaced their darn good 20-35mm f2.8 L lens.. and it took how long for Nikon to come out with a 17-35 of their own,...and just look at the size of that thing.. it is big and bulky,..hmmmmmm......could it have anything to do with that anchient lens mount..??
YES! ..and guess why they won't ever come out with a FF camera..? Honestly,...I'd rather have a FF camera,...and I do own the 5D,...and when I see vinyetting, I can correct it on Adobe Photoshop Raw processing in about 2 seconds! Furthermore,.....having a little softness in the wide corners of the image is beautiful. It draws the attention of the viewer away from the corners of the image, which can become a little distracting...hence the use of vinyetting filters for portraits......and I read all these people complaining about a little "real lens" effects...well, I believe that could be because they are so used to working with this cropped format, that many have forgotten what real lenses on a real 35mm format look like,...and or never used 35mm format SLR cameras before..
Yep,... the 5D is a revolution in the making! (just a "start"...no further comment)..
JP
espn said:
Well, then you obviously haven't read the forums... because I have seen them... I have seen "Nikonians" brag about how having a fcropping factor is really an advantage over FF.. which for the life of me,... I don't understand.. There is nothing that convinces me otherwise. The Nikon vs Canon wars are real on BOTH sides. Just because someone owns a particular brand doesn't mean that, that automatically means they are not a forum jerk! Some people just want to start trou8ble, and some people want to have a civilized discussion, and then there are those who trash the topics with their spitful garbage.....it's soooo dpreview..
That's all I have to say on that..
JP
Wahahha!!! This has to be the best bullsh!t I've ever read in a long time.Beerboy said:You know what's funny..? If you use a 17-40 L lens on a film body, the same thing will happen too.. LOL.. Digital is however a little different, being that the sensor doesn't have the ability to allow light hit it from every angle like film does.. but, as far as the lens is conserned, if it is soft in the corners of a full frame digital body, it will be that same in a film body too.. which is not a real issue to me.. Think about it,... Before.....( I believe it was 1995)... Canon introduced the 17-35mm f2.8 L lens, which replaced their darn good 20-35mm f2.8 L lens.. and it took how long for Nikon to come out with a 17-35 of their own,...and just look at the size of that thing.. it is big and bulky,..hmmmmmm......could it have anything to do with that anchient lens mount..??
And nobody wondered why a 16-35 f/2.8L was to replace the 17-35 f/2.8L?
Or how about why a 17-40 f/4L was created :bsmilie:
Now I know why you were oust from dpreview. :bsmilie:
+1 before lock?
I mean chill. Thread starter started a discussion on his observations of 5D noise, and somehow, in a very weird way, deviates to discussion on Nikon again. And from camera to lenses. Both Nikon and Canon makes great cameras and lenses. I'm happy it's that way, otherwise without competition, there's no progress and nothing to drive prices down.
But I digress as well. I thought the ISO3600 noise from 5D was quite impressive. In fact more than others that I've seen. It could be due to the fact that it was converted from RAW. I own a 10D myself, and without the benefit of a controlled test, merely experience of shooting jpegs, I would say 10Ds jpeg noise becomes unacceptable at 1600 and beyond. Some even go as far as saying 800 is bad enough. 5Ds jpegs in comparison are cleaner (to the eye) at 800 onwards. Not significant, like CYRN pointed out, but visible. Although for the price difference, we would really hope it'll be more significant than that.
I mean chill. Thread starter started a discussion on his observations of 5D noise, and somehow, in a very weird way, deviates to discussion on Nikon again. And from camera to lenses. Both Nikon and Canon makes great cameras and lenses. I'm happy it's that way, otherwise without competition, there's no progress and nothing to drive prices down.
But I digress as well. I thought the ISO3600 noise from 5D was quite impressive. In fact more than others that I've seen. It could be due to the fact that it was converted from RAW. I own a 10D myself, and without the benefit of a controlled test, merely experience of shooting jpegs, I would say 10Ds jpeg noise becomes unacceptable at 1600 and beyond. Some even go as far as saying 800 is bad enough. 5Ds jpegs in comparison are cleaner (to the eye) at 800 onwards. Not significant, like CYRN pointed out, but visible. Although for the price difference, we would really hope it'll be more significant than that.
My....the height of ignorance and fanboyism.Beerboy said:and it took how long for Nikon to come out with a 17-35 of their own,...and just look at the size of that thing.. it is big and bulky,..hmmmmmm......could it have anything to do with that anchient lens mount..??
Nikon full-frame cameras include the following: Nikon E2N/E2Ns(1996), E3(1998).
Kodak DCS-14N, SLR Pro/N.
Zerstorer said:
Nikon E2 and E3 looks like having crop factor
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/digitalSLRs/E3E3s/index.htm
- Status
Similar threads
