Nikon is Feeding Canon its lunch....and them some

Charlie wrote in post #17886127
I'm saying times change, you wouldnt want a camera that could only shoot up to ISO 1600 right?

BTW, ansel and his dodging and burning, he'd definitely shoot a high dynamic range system these days!

I think you guys are in agreement, just fyi.

Charlie wrote in post #17886127
I'm saying times change, you wouldnt want a camera that could only shoot up to ISO 1600 right?

BTW, ansel and his dodging and burning, he'd definitely shoot a high dynamic range system these days!

yes, times change. but yagottawonder:

• why did film photographers mostly load the most DR constricted film type into their cameras by choice?!
  
• are digital photographers overly obsessed with a characteristic that ultimately is NOT a killer issue to their art/craft?
  

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17886118
Move onto what? DR was one of 3 major gaps that most likely initiated this post. DR, shadow noise recovery, and high ISO performance....

This thread will continue for quite some time, especially once the 1DX II hits the streets.

Well, no, DR wasn't that major of a gap. It was a nice-to-have on personal wishlists. Less important than consumer issues like lens lineup, customer support, repair services, professional services, etc. imo. And now we'll soon have it.

Wilt wrote in post #17886135
yes, times change. but yagottawonder:

• why did film photographers mostly load the most DR constricted film type into their cameras by choice?!
  
• are digital photographers overly obsessed with a characteristic that ultimately is NOT a killer issue to their art/craft?
  

Oh, gotcha, you're not agreement. My bad.

I think it has more to do with people viewing a camera as a recording device than an artist's instrument. Piece of tech instead of painter's brush. And this has to do with how "cheap" and accessible cameras have gotten.

idkdc wrote in post #17886104
It's easy, you aim your lens in the opposite direction. Also, you're putting words in someone else's mouth

No I'm not-his exact words were "why don't landscape guys take all their shots with the light behind them"

This is clearly impossible for sunrise and sunset.

Besides being unnecessarily snide I don't see the purpose of your response?

Wilt wrote in post #17886135
yes, times change. but yagottawonder:

• why did film photographers mostly load the most DR constricted film type into their cameras by choice?!
  
• are digital photographers overly obsessed with a characteristic that ultimately is NOT a killer issue to their art/craft?
  

I didnt shoot film, so I dont know

I disagree with your second assessment. Grad filters are a very popular item, and to be used to increase dynamic range. People have been using them all their lives, but they dont particularly work well with ultrawide angles or odd shapes..... that's why HDR is popular.

Somebloke wrote in post #17886145
No I'm not-his exact words were "why don't landscape guys take all their shots with the light behind them"

This is clearly impossible for sunrise and sunset.

Besides being unnecessarily snide I don't see the purpose of your response?

You seem to not shoot landscapes at all, or to shoot them poorly if you don't understand this concept. He never said to "take pictures OF a sunrise/sunset." (This is where you're putting words into someone's mouth.)

There is plenty of light to shoot opposite of a setting or rising sun.

idkdc wrote in post #17886151
You seem to not shoot landscapes at all, or to shoot them poorly if you don't understand this concept. He never said to "take pictures OF a sunrise/sunset." (This is where you're putting words into someone's mouth.)

There is plenty of light to shoot opposite of a setting or rising sun.

You are the one putting words in people's mouths-he said ALL their shots ( as you seem to enjoy being pedantic)

This clearly has to therefore encompass sunrise and sunset. Why are you wanting to argue, it brings down the quality of the forum.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17886091
Taking a 70-200 without a flash and to stop motion, you will be at 1/400th or so. ISO 25600 is easily utilized if your reception hall has all dark paneling on the walls, and they use close to the ceiling incandescent lighting with a few sconces every 5 feet or so. They purposely bring the lighting down for mood and so that the DJ can show off his display on the dance floor.

ISO 12800 and 25600 can easily be needed for many receptions. It doesn't take much for you to push that ISO up. You are not going to carry around video lights to take pics of the guests at each of the tables, and flash sometimes can be used, but alot of times in such a dark environment you are just going to blind everyone even with the flash power turned down. I don't shoot alot of weddings, but the last 3 I did, I needed very, very high ISO.

You must take my replies/posts with the humor intended but, I do have some years shooting weddings in awful lighting scenarios. I seldom use anything more than a 24/70 at a reception and my standard setup is 1/100th at f4. I don't freeze the action as it's not sports and nobody has complained yet ... there's always time tho

My favorite is a 35mm 1.4 lens for most of the evening shooting couples rather than the whole table of 12 when quite honestly 4 out of 12 ain't listening to me calling for a photo anyway.

And yes, one wedding I did take around a video light and it worked very well until the bulb went 'pop'...

idkdc wrote in post #17886151
You seem to not shoot landscapes at all, or to shoot them poorly if you don't understand this concept. He never said to "take pictures OF a sunrise/sunset." (This is where you're putting words into someone's mouth.)

There is plenty of light to shoot opposite of a setting or rising sun.

Here is the quote in a nutshell... If shadow recovery is so very important, then all landscape shots would be taken with light behind them... So since sunrises and sunsets are some of the most prevalent of landscape shots, then how do you shoot these with the light behind you? I don't think anything was taken out of context at all.

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #17886010
If shadow detail was always so important, ... why don't landscape guys take all their shots with the light behind them and low in the sky to blast away all the shadows.... A very small percentage of shooters will find a higher DR invaluable, and for them I'm sure it's a godsend, but for the average person, simply not an issue, and nothing to be concerned with, let alone hung up about. And as B&W guy, I actually LIKE shadows

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17886159
Here is the quote in a nutshell... If shadow recovery is so very important, then all landscape shots would be taken with light behind them... So since sunrises and sunsets are some of the most prevalent of landscape shots, then how do you shoot these with the light behind you? I don't think anything was taken out of context at all, and one might assume that welshwizard is the one that doesn't shoot alot of landscape shots based on the comments. I have no idea, but the comments below are pretty self-explanatory.

Oh, gotcha, I misread the first post by welsh. Edit: wait, I think I read that right..

idkdc wrote in post #17886166
Oh, gotcha, I misread the first post by welsh.

And every one of my posts....

What video light did you use? I am thinking of adding some sort of LED bank system to my kit. My Streaklights aren't going to be all that useful in a reception setting, but having a diffused constant light source off the camera (bracket or otherwise), it would be useful during some of the reception events. I am pretty much a 2nd shooter for now, as I haven't decided if all the time that goes into shooting as the primary is worth the money or not. The money would be very useful, but the stress and post processing, legal risks, etc, I just don't know.

I do know that at the last wedding I shot, the couple loved all my shots and were very angry at the primary shooter. She just didn't have the appropriate equipment to shoot the event, but she is more active in the community as a shooter.

And I like shadows and b&w as well, but sometimes there are challenges to DR. One my fav B&W shots from one of the gigs I was called into.... Now that I have my battery powered lights, I would be able to overpower some of the ambient light now, and lower the exposure a bit. Can't wait to use them this year!

Somebloke wrote in post #17886172
And every one of my posts....

Not really.

Somebloke wrote in post #17886156
You are the one putting words in people's mouths

I quote:

Somebloke wrote in post #17886145
No I'm not-his exact words were "why don't landscape guys take all their shots with the light behind them"

This is clearly impossible for sunrise and sunset.

You can take a shot of the landscape at sunrise/sunset with the lens pointed the opposite direction of the sun. I think you're misunderstanding his argument to begin with - that high contrast situations have their merit, otherwise people would only shoot a, b and c, and not d, e and f.

He's just not very direct with how he words it, and there's a logical jump at some point: he means to say that artists of yore have done high-key, low-key + chiascuro lighting for a while where DR is not an issue or is actually the opposite end goal. I think I'd rather have more DR in camera and achieve the contrast in post, just like I'd rather have more sharpness sooc and reduce in post for beauty portraits, so I think the argument falls short.

idkdc wrote in post #17886177
Not really.

I quote:

You can take a shot of the landscape at sunrise/sunset with the lens pointed the opposite direction of the sun.

I'm just going to let you go...I have much more important things in life to do than waste time feeding trolls