For what its worth

great to have another dxo conspiracy thread. We all know Canon is number 1 in every area no matter what. So please dont post any nikon sony pics because i try to ignore those pictures

MalVeauX Quote:]Irrelevant if the image satisfies what it was meant to in the medium it was intended for.

Also, are we looking at what YOU did as a photographer, or what a sensor made by someone else did, and you just pushed a button?

AND:

Re: For what its worth

Quote:
Originally Posted by MalVeauX View Post
Irrelevant if the image satisfies what it was meant to in the medium it was intended for.

Also, are we looking at what YOU did as a photographer, or what a sensor made by someone else did, and you just pushed a button?

Very best,
Really? So gear has nothing or very little to do with it?

80% of POTN is about camera technology. Which is why this board is so active. People want to know whats new? What technological barriers breakthroughs are on the horizon?

If we only cared about the photographer than there should only be a photo display thread and we shouldn't really care about new cameras/technology.
**** End Quotes:: ****

Well, I agree with MalVeauX on the above -- despite all the dismantling and researching the new technology, the real reason any of us do any of it -- THE PRINT.

YOU can discuss technique, electrons, DR, ISO, Color maps -- and what is the purpose of it ... THE PRINT -- otherwise, why do it? IF you say, E-Images, we don't need nearly the technology for E-images ... the fundamental use for the best and newest technology always ends with a print as the final product, both as commercial applications or fine art --

monkey44 wrote in post #17265907
MalVeauX Quote:]Irrelevant if the image satisfies what it was meant to in the medium it was intended for.

Also, are we looking at what YOU did as a photographer, or what a sensor made by someone else did, and you just pushed a button?

AND:

Re: For what its worth

Quote:
Originally Posted by MalVeauX View Post
Irrelevant if the image satisfies what it was meant to in the medium it was intended for.

Also, are we looking at what YOU did as a photographer, or what a sensor made by someone else did, and you just pushed a button?

Very best,
Really? So gear has nothing or very little to do with it?

80% of POTN is about camera technology. Which is why this board is so active. People want to know whats new? What technological barriers breakthroughs are on the horizon?

If we only cared about the photographer than there should only be a photo display thread and we shouldn't really care about new cameras/technology.
**** End Quotes:: ****

Well, I agree with MalVeauX on the above -- despite all the dismantling and researching the new technology, the real reason any of us do any of it -- THE PRINT.

YOU can discuss technique, electrons, DR, ISO, Color maps -- and what is the purpose of it ... THE PRINT -- otherwise, why do it? IF you say, E-Images, we don't need nearly the technology for E-images ... the fundamental use for the best and newest technology always ends with a print as the final product, both as commercial applications or fine art --

What is this PRINT you are referring to? Is it like VHS.

CanonVsNikon wrote in post #17266205
What is this PRINT you are referring to? Is it like VHS.

Print, photograph, poster ... sorry, I often forget these cameras also shoot video. In my life as a photographer, I've owned five models of DSLR that shoot video -- but I've never once shot a single frame of video.

So, I think of the product as a Print ... a photograph. So, I never relate to the video product. I think of video as something that shows action, motion, and is shot using a video camera built for that purpose and much higher quality - like for professional applications.

It's just the way I feel - not proposing those that do use it for video type applications are an less proficient or motivated, but it's just something that never enters my mind.

All the applications about video in these DSLR cameras are always less quality video than a camera built specifically for video production, and these dual purpose video outputs simply operate less effectively than one designed exclusively for video -- but it serves a purpose -- I'd never even consider producing profession video product using a DSLR. But, that's just me, and others will have differing opinions, I'm sure.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17265667
Irrelevant if the image satisfies what it was meant to in the medium it was intended for.

Also, are we looking at what YOU did as a photographer, or what a sensor made by someone else did, and you just pushed a button?

Very best,

When evaluating a camera, and specifically the sensor of that camera and how it behaves under certain conditions, then I look at detailed scientific tests.

When I want to see how good a photographer is, I will look at his finished photos.

Sounds like you will be swayed into using a certain camera because Joe blow photographer has nice pictures and you want to make pictures just like him. Good luck with that.

That's Canon's main goal of showing nice photos in magazines shot by some professions...so people like you will look at the ad and want to purchase that same outfit to produce that same photo.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17265691
If you are familiar with Hogloff on this forum, you would understand my post.

Very best,

Good back pedal. I actually think you were serious with your original post and are trying to save face.

Hogloff wrote in post #17266946
Good back pedal. I actually think you were serious with your original post and are trying to save face.

Hogloff, we are very sorry that Canon has let you down.

Here, have some loving and some hugs from me

(((((((((((Hug>>>Hogloff(<<<Hug))))))))))))

You Too CvsN

(((((((((((Hug>>>CanonVsNikon(<<<Hug))))))))))))

ksbal wrote in post #17267339
Hogloff, we are very sorry that Canon has let you down.

Here, have some loving and some hugs from me

(((((((((((Hug>>>Hogloff(<<<Hug))))))))))))

You Too CvsN

(((((((((((Hug>>>CanonVsNikon(<<<Hug))))))))))))

Hugs back

Why does it seem to bother so many of you if some people choose to use other cameras than Canon? Rather than trying to learn about these other cameras, their strengths and weaknesses, you get defensive and resort to childish behavior.

I personally use 3 different camera systems, depending on the situation and circumstances. Much of my work is still shot with a Canon 5d2 or 7d...but I also use a Sony A7R for my landscape work and a Fuji X100 for my carry anywhere and everywhere camera. I also still shoot quite a bit of B&W film using both a Fuji 6x9 and a Tachihara 4x5.

I continue to try learning about the different cameras out there. I treat them all as tools...don't really care what label is on the front. I buy the best tool for me to achieve my needs. I use sites like DXO and others to learn details about the different tools, or should I say cameras.

I think if some of you would approach your cameras as tools, just like that hammer you have in your tool chest, rather than some cherished piece of art, you would expand your minds and be able better appreciate different camera brands and sites like DXO rather than getting into a tissy because some arbitrary ranking doesn't put your camera brand as no. 1.

I think most people are saying that in the end, the image looks the same, even with all the hype going on from Dxo.
People are not dumb, and dxo numbers might look impressive, but in the end each brands has to offer their own signature.

I work in the bicycle industry, and believe me ....every big companies are trying to leapfrog the other one by saying their bikes are the best, the most aero, the lightest ....
But in the end, if you dont have the muscles and the experience to profit from these so called evolution, you wont be able to see the difference.
Even the pros are paid to make believe that a is better than b.
Its all bout people getting paid to talk bout the brands, magazines and commercials.

Its hype...
I think Canon are taking another path, sure they got the dough to relax a little, but they are doing things differently, they don't have a new full frame coming out every year,they still do research, but not as the same pace as the others.

I like what I see from my camera, I like what fuji and nikon makes.
competition is great, but when a cie come out with a camera every year and there is little differences, their must be a reason for that.....you feel you got cheated, just like the new iphone models......buy, buy, buy.....

sega62 wrote in post #17268411
I think most people are saying that in the end, the image looks the same, even with all the hype going on from Dxo.
People are not dumb, and dxo numbers might look impressive, but in the end each brands has to offer their own signature.

I work in the bicycle industry, and believe me ....every big companies are trying to leapfrog the other one by saying their bikes are the best, the most aero, the lightest ....
But in the end, if you dont have the muscles and the experience to profit from these so called evolution, you wont be able to see the difference.
Even the pros are paid to make believe that a is better than b.
Its all bout people getting paid to talk bout the brands, magazines and commercials.

Its hype...
I think Canon are taking another path, sure they got the dough to relax a little, but they are doing things differently, they don't have a new full frame coming out every year,they still do research, but not as the same pace as the others.

I like what I see from my camera, I like what fuji and nikon makes.
competition is great, but when a cie come out with a camera every year and there is little differences, their must be a reason for that.....you feel you got cheated, just like the new iphone models......buy, buy, buy.....

What are you making these statements based on...actual practical experience with the other cameras or speculation on your part. I've tried a bunch of different cameras and yes they do deliver different qualities depending on what you shoot. You might not notice these qualities unless you make the most out of your cameras and make prints with them. For viewing on low resolution monitors that are not calibrated, these differences will disappear...but I find it funny how when Canon release a new camera everyone is climbing over themselves claiming the new model has about 1/2 stop less noise or it's sharper or the colours are better...yet when you look at a totally different camera with a totally different designed sensor...they all look the same.

For most, any hammer in the box will hammer in the nail, but there is a reason why a carpenter has 3 or 4 different types of hammers in his chest...very much why there is a reason why photos have multiple cameras in their bags...and they don't have to be all the same brand.

If the picture captures my attention, holds it, makes me think a little, enjoy it and perhaps inspired by it then it is a good picture. In that process I may evaluate the technical details but more than likely I will look at the composition and subject. I have yet to see DR, high ISO performance and the like outshine that.

Go take pictures people! People have been taking great pictures with what are now considered crappy cameras for a long time. The more pictures I take and review them the more I can separate the wheat from the chaff. I think that is true for most folks too.

TTuna Eye wrote in post #17268609
If the picture captures my attention, holds it, makes me think a little, enjoy it and perhaps inspired by it then it is a good picture. In that process I may evaluate the technical details but more than likely I will look at the composition and subject. I have yet to see DR, high ISO performance and the like outshine that.

Go take pictures people! People have been taking great pictures with what are now considered crappy cameras for a long time. The more pictures I take and review them the more I can separate the wheat from the chaff. I think that is true for most folks too.

Who says those beautiful photos were not taken with high DR cameras and maybe that extra umphfff is what gets your attention.

I shoot for dramatic, emotional prints. To do this with my 5d2 requires me a lot of the time to use GND filters or blend multiple exposures to get the image I want. With my A7R and its improved DR, I rely less on these techniques as the image captured by the camera holds more of the dynamic range I'm trying to capture.

The photos I print might not show any difference. The real difference is the number of keepers I get back from a shoot and the pleasure of not having to deal with filters or multiple exposures as both those techniques are full of problems.

I'm a bigger fan of Robert Cicala's (on LensRental.com's blog) cross-platform comparisons of lenses from different companies where he'll take the sensor completely out of the equation. Rental guy dealing with all sorts of equipment seems to have less bias than a testing company whose services are only hired by Sony or Nikon and not Canon.